Using SMS Technology and Social Media to
Increase Scripture Study among Teens Enrolled in the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’
Seminary Education Program

Utah Valley University
Using SMS Technology and Social Media to
Increase Scripture Study among Teens Enrolled in the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’
Seminary Education Program
A project submitted in partial satisfaction
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Education
In
Curriculum and Instruction
by
Wendy W. Bird
April 20132
Utah Valley University
Graduate Committee Approval
Of a project submitted by
Wendy W. Bird
This project has been read by each member of the following graduate
committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.
_______________ ________________________________
Date Dr. Raquel Cook
_______________ ________________________________
Date Dr. Mary Sowder3
Dedication and Acknowledgements
This work is dedicated to the millions of students throughout the world who have sacrificed to take seminary.
Acknowledgements: To Dr. Raquel Cook whose tireless editing, enthusiasm, and encouragement for this project was much appreciated. (Did I use my commas correctly according to APA in that last sentence?) I couldn’t have asked for a better Chair! To Dorian Kinder, who made my whole Master’s experience especially fun. Thank you for your friendship and willingness to always be my project partner. To LeGrand Laing, my friend and mentor, who was the first person in CES to take a chance on me – and who continues to believe in me. Thank you. To Sherrie Anthony who inspired me to pursue my Master’s degree, and whose friendship and experience is invaluable. Thanks also to Matthew P. Wilcox whose encouragement and help with statistics was a life saver. Last, but certainly not least, I wish to acknowledge my wonderful family for their unconditional love and support. So glad we get to go through life - and eternity - together! I love you!4
Abstract
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) educates its youth through a program of instruction called seminary. All seminary students are encouraged to make daily scripture study a part of their lives, though many students struggle to make this reading a habit. Given the popularity of social media such as Facebook, and the use of SMS technology for texting among teens, research was done to see if using such methods to encourage and remind students to read would be successful in increasing their scripture study. Although results of this study proved statistically insignificant, much was learned regarding students, their preferences, and their desire for a program such as this. Students clearly prefer texting reminders over Facebook, read the reminders they are sent, and would recommend a program such as this one to be implemented in their seminary programs. 5
Contents
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................7
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................8
Research Problem ........................................................................................................... 9
Research Purpose ............................................................................................................ 9
Research Questions......................................................................................................... 9
Personal Significance.................................................................................................... 10
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2 Literature Review..............................................................................................14
Blended Learning.......................................................................................................... 14
Teens and SMS Technology for Texting...................................................................... 15
SMS and Education....................................................................................................... 19
Social Media ................................................................................................................. 23
Summary....................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 3 Methodology .....................................................................................................26
Research Design............................................................................................................ 26
Participants................................................................................................................... 27
Duration ........................................................................................................................ 30
Research Perspective .................................................................................................... 31
Data Gathering and Instrumentation............................................................................. 32
Chapter 4 Results ...............................................................................................................36 6
Texting vs. Facebook.................................................................................................... 36
Student Reporting ......................................................................................................... 37
Student Survey Responses ............................................................................................ 40
Chapter 5 Analysis.............................................................................................................50
Implementation Challenges .......................................................................................... 52
Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 56
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 57
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 60
References.........................................................................................................................61
Appendix A........................................................................................................................65
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................68
Appendix C ........................................................................................................................70
Appendix D........................................................................................................................73
Appendix E ........................................................................................................................74
Appendix F.........................................................................................................................75
Appendix G........................................................................................................................79
Appendix H........................................................................................................................80
Appendix I .........................................................................................................................81
Appendix J .........................................................................................................................87
Appendix K........................................................................................................................89 7
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Graph showing gender and grade level participation in raw numbers…...…………..30
2 Research question analysis chart……………………………………………………..35
3 Graph showing how students and parents participated in the scripture reading reminder program. ………………………………………………………………………………..37
4 Chart showing frequency (how many days read) percentages of student scripture reading from actual numbers and from self-reported numbers………………......……..38
5 Duration (how many minutes read per day) percentages of student scripture reading from actual numbers and self-reported numbers…………………………...………….. 39
6 Graph showing how often students reported reading the text reminders………….…40
7 Graph showing how often students self-reported reading the Facebook posts………41
8 Graph showing students’ perceived text messaging effectiveness in raw numbers, not percentages……………………………………………………………………………...42
9 Graph showing responses from student survey regarding how students would change
the program. Answers are in raw numbers, not percentages…………………………. 42
10 Graph showing responses from student survey regarding how students would change the program. Answers are in raw numbers, not percentages…………………………..45
11 Graph showing the parents experience with texting, and their perceived view of the program’s effectiveness with their child………………………………………………..47
12 Graph showing the parents self-reported increase in their own scripture study and the perceived effectiveness of the program with their child …………………………….…48
13 Table showing responses to open-ended questions on parent survey………………498
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) educates its youth through a program of instruction called seminary. This instruction takes place either as “release time” from school, where students meet in a building off school grounds for the duration of a class period, or during an early morning instructional program where students meet with seminary teachers before school. The purpose of seminary is to educate teens about the teachings and doctrines of the LDS Church. In order to fully understand the teachings and doctrines, the students have a responsibility to study such teachings as found in the LDS scriptural canon.
All seminary students are encouraged to make daily scripture study a part of their lives. Seminary students receive a grade similar to an academic grade for the course based on class participation, daily scripture study, and knowledge of selected scripture passages known as “scripture mastery.” The grades they receive in seminary to do not appear on their school transcripts.
There is currently no program in place to remind seminary students to read their scriptures outside of the classroom. Despite encouragement from seminary teachers to make scripture study a daily habit, a large number of seminary students are not reading their scriptures daily and do not keep up with the assigned readings. In essence, the burden of scripture reading achievement relies on students’ self-motivation. Although there are no current statistics available from the LDS church to support this claim, I have observed over the course of 5 years of teaching within 25 different high schools that most students do not come prepared to class and do not read their scriptures on a daily basis. 9
With current cellular and wireless technologies that enable nearly 80% of seminary students to be contacted individually throughout the day (Nielsen, 2011) it is logical to assume the combination of such technology with scripture reading reminders, as well as reminders through Facebook, the most favored social media site among teens, would produce an increase in scripture reading among seminary students. This paper will explore whether this assumption is correct.
Research Problem
Despite encouragement to make scripture study a daily habit, most seminary students are not reading their scriptures daily and do not keep up with the assigned readings.
Research Purpose
This study explored the effects of SMS technology and social media contact outside of seminary classes on students’ daily scripture reading.
Research Questions
This exploration sought to answer the following questions:
1. Does receiving daily text message reminders increase how often seminary students read their scriptures? (Can be from any book of scripture they choose.)
2. Does receiving daily text message reminders increase the number of minutes seminary students read their scriptures?
3. Does receiving reminders via Facebook post increase scripture reading among seminary students?
4. Did the program increase scripture reading, and if so, what elements of the scripture reading reminder program work best toward achieving the goal of increased daily scripture reading? 10
Personal Significance
During the past 5 years, I have taught seminary throughout Utah County in over 25 different schools. Because I do not hold a permanent teaching position at any one school, I have had the unique opportunity to teach approximately 38,000 different students over the course of these 5 years. (By contrast, a permanent seminary teacher would have only taught 2,000 different students within this same time period.) There is great socio-economic disparity among these students, yet all are learning the same church-wide seminary curriculum. At nearly every school I have found the majority of students anxious to learn, willing to participate, and wanting a good experience. I have also found, however, that the majority of students do not keep up with assigned readings from their permanent seminary teachers, and struggle to read their scriptures daily. I have never encountered a teacher in any seminary program that has not had this problem as well.
In addition to having been the teacher of thousands of seminary students, I am also the mother of four teenage daughters. I know from experience how often teens use their cell phones for texting. Teens do not ignore text messages and struggle to even delay looking at their phones when they know they have been sent a message. Teens definitely exhibit a sense of urgency in reading and responding to their texts. Since teens carry with them the technology to be reached and reminded through text messages, and given the fact that they struggle to ignore these messages, I believe this technology can be used to help remind teens to read their scriptures daily.
I am also keenly aware of the time teens spend on Facebook (Facebook, 2011). This social media is the lifeline for many teens, including my own, who use Facebook for 11
more than just connecting with friends. They use it to form social groups, rally peers for voting purposes, disperse information for clubs and social events, and even post requests for help and advice among fellow Facebook users. Ignoring teens’ use of Facebook would be ignoring a major component of their social lives.
In creating this research project, I believed the introduction of a reminder program which utilized Facebook and/or text messaging would help students increase their personal scripture study.
Definition of Terms
Many terms specific to the field of seminary education will be used throughout this paper; therefore, the following definitions will assist the reader in comprehension of the terms discussed.
LDS (Latter-day Saint) or Mormon: Belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Seminary: Religious instruction for teens during their school day which focuses on the doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church.
Seminary Students: Refers to teenagers aged 14-18 who have parental permission to leave school grounds to attend seminary. Students may or may not be members of the LDS church; however, it is rare to have students attend seminary who are not members.
Seminary Teachers: For the purpose of this study, the term “seminary teachers” refers only to full-time teachers employed by the LDS church’s education system. Although the church’s seminary program includes part-time early morning teachers throughout the world, this study will only be working with teachers who teach seminary full-time during the day. 12
Scriptures: In addition to commonly accepted Christian scriptures such as the Old and New Testaments in the King James version of the Bible, “scriptures” in this paper will also refer to LDS-specific books of scripture known as the LDS canon: The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Students may read from any of the above books to meet the criteria for scripture reading.
Daily Reading: Any scripture passage a student wishes to read from any scripture.
Scripture Block: A specific set of scripture chapters and verses studied together. They may or may not be consecutive chapters or verses, but they represent a grouping to be studied together. For their assigned readings, seminary students are asked to read a particular scripture block before attending their next class so they are familiar with the scriptures they will be discussing that day.
Scripture Mastery: Selected scripture verses in the area of study (such as Old Testament or New Testament) which contain key points of church doctrine for students to know and understand. Students are encouraged to memorize scripture mastery verses and are required to do so in order to receive a high grade in their seminary class.
Release Time: This term is used by high schools or junior high schools to describe the class period where students are “released” from school to attend seminary classes. On the students’ official school transcript, “seminary” is not listed, but “release time” is. Students usually walk to the seminary building which is located off school grounds, but in close proximity to the school. Release time is only approved for students if they attend seminary class regularly. If they do not attend regularly, the high school or junior high school is notified of their absences and their release time privileges are revoked. They are then required to be at school. 13
Prophets and Apostles: Believed to be men called of God to preach his gospel on Earth today, as were the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus to preach the gospel during his earthly ministry.
Social Media: Websites dedicated to social interaction by their members. Examples of social media websites are Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace.
SMS Technology: Short Messaging Service is the technology used for texting. Although SMS technology has other uses, for the purpose of this study only SMS technology used with cell phone texting will be examined. 14
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Schools are challenged today by students who are described as the “net generation” and “digital natives,” referring to the notion that they have lived their whole lives surrounded by a variety of technologies (Tapscott, 2009). Students today are the “first generation in history that can text, tweet and blog to the whole world” (Dautrich& Yalof, 2008). This is a challenge because these youth are swiftly moving within the information society with all the possibilities of wireless networking and social software, while “schools are only slowly finding the advantages of these everyday technologies in authentic teaching and learning” (Vesisenaho, Valtonen, Kukkonen, Havu-Nuutinen, Hartikainen, & Karkkainen, 2010).
Sharples (2003) suggests that rather than seeing them as disruptive devices, educators should seek to exploit the potential of the technologies students bring with them and find ways to put them into good use for the benefit of learning. In essence, teachers should change their mindset from viewing students’ love of technology in a negative light, and turn instead to looking for ways to take advantage of potential blended learning opportunities.
Blended Learning
A blended approach to enable learning with mobile technologies such as SMS and social media “is necessary as successful and engaging activities draw on a number of different theories and practices” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2009). A trend exists among educators who believe learning will move more and more outside of the classroom and into the learner’s environments, both real and virtual. “There is considerable interest in exploiting the almost universal appeal and abundance of these 15
technologies for their [students’] educational use” (Naismith et al, 2009). Thus, teachers are beginning to recognize and embrace their students’ immersion in technology as a valuable asset to enhance classroom instruction and improve students’ learning performance.
In one study, blended learning technologies were used to support at-risk computing students at the University of Wolverhampton (Riordan & Traxler, 2003). The objectives of this project were to develop, deliver, and evaluate blending learning that exploited a number of different technologies in order to identify which was most successful. Results of the study showed students prefer receiving notices and communication via SMS rather than e-mail or noticeboards, and used SMS text messaging promptly and effectively.
Final exam results for the group of students receiving SMS interventions and notices were slightly higher than for non-SMS groups. Although the results were not statistically significant the students provided considerable positive feedback, with the majority acknowledging the SMS contact to be worthwhile. Students also claimed SMS interventions to be their preferred technology and identified them as being successful if they were short, personalized, and focused (Riordan &Traxler, 2003).
Teens and SMS Technology for Texting
To understand why the use of SMS technology could also provide an opportunity for blended learning for teens, it is important to understand the extent to which teens rely on their phones. To teens, cell phones are seen as a convenient source of independence, safety, and privacy (Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002). Students like texting because it is fast and easy to use and because the “anytime anywhere aspects of the phones allows them to multitask” (Lu, 2008, p. 27). Some adolescents have described leaving home 16
without a cell phone as feeling “almost like leaving home without their clothes on” (Survey: Teen’s, 2008). Another significant finding in 2008 by Harris Interactive identified that “teens believe mobile phones are an integral part of their identities and that their popularity and status among peers is tied to their phones” (Harris Interactive, 2008). The Harris study reported that 45% of teens believe that having a cell phone is a “key to their social life,” and 57% believe it “improves the quality of their life” (p. 12).
The Nielsen Media Usage report issued in June 2011 states that approximately 80% of teens own cell phones and acknowledges that “teens today are the most digitally connected generation we have ever seen and continue the upward trend of cell phone ownership and usage” (Nielsen, 2011, p. 3). The Harris Study of over 2,000 teenagers corroborates the findings in the Nielsen report by also stating 80% of American teens own a cell phone (Harris Interactive, 2008). The Pew Study done in 2009 indicates a slightly smaller percentage of cell phone ownership among teens, stating only 75% of 12-17 year-olds own a cell phone, up from 45% in 2004 (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purmobile, 2009). Though percentages vary slightly by study, it is well established that the majority of teens own cell phones.
Of the students who have a cell phone, 90% use them for texting purposes (Nielsen, 2011). “Those phones have become indispensable tools in teen communication patterns, with fully 72% of all teens -- or 88% of teen cell phone users -- being text-messagers” (Lenhart et al, 2009). The Pew study indicates this is a sharp rise from the 51% of teens who were engaged in text messaging in 2006. Currently, more than half of teens are involved in text messaging on a daily basis (Lenhart et al., 2009), and more than 42% of teens could text blindfolded (Harris Interactive, 2008). 17
Teens between the ages of 13-17 represent the demographic with the highest number of mobile texts sent per month. The Nielsen report (2011) identified each teen in this age group sending an average of 3,364 texts per month. The literature clearly shows a high percentage of cell phone usage among teens and documents teens’ substantial use of SMS technology. To ignore teens’ usage of this technology is to ignore an integral part of their lives.
Benefits of SMS technology. Using SMS technology to enhance classroom instruction is a logical step. As is documented above, nearly all students have access to the technology, they are extremely well versed in its use thereby eliminating training and expenditure, and it provides a medium to receive instructional or motivational contact anytime and anywhere. Adolescents indicate text messaging is quicker, cheaper, and in a number of ways more convenient than oral-based uses of their phones (Grinter & Eldridge, 2003). Grinter and Eldridge reported 90% of text messages were sent to friends, thus recognizing teens to be highly socially motivated to use and carry their cell phones at all times. In addition, since texts come in written form, students must read them to receive the message, increasing their likelihood of remembering the text’s message. This statement is based on findings that indicate memory which comes from a visual or spatial pattern is the most likely to remain, whereas hearing is the least likely and least effective way to establish memory (Caine & Caine, 1994).
Concerns with SMS technology. Educators and teachers have struggled with embracing SMS technology because of concerns with cheating and bullying (Thomas& Orthober, 2011). Cheating concerns do appear to be supported by research findings (Common Sense Media, 2011; Lenhart et al., 2009), which identify two-thirds of students questioned admitting either they or their classmates use their mobile phones to cheat. 18
In addition to cheating, concerns about bullying via cell phone are supported by research. Cyberbullying is defined as “an intentionally aggressive act or behavior perpetrated by one individual or group on another person over a period of time using electronic forms of contact” (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Shanette & Tippett, 2008). A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 26% of teens have been harassed through their mobile phone either by calls or text messages (Lenhart et al., 2009). Thus, teens using cell phones to bully their peers also appears to be a legitimate concern.
Parents and teachers are justifiably concerned with the inappropriate use of SMS technology when it comes to their students. However, mobile phones are not the cause of these problems; they are merely the most current vehicles in which students act out their poor behavior (National, 2009). In 1980, before mobile phones, 75% of students reported cheating in school (Baird, 2006). Twenty-five years later, approximately 74% of students still report cheating in school (Pickett & Thomas, 2006). These statistics prove the introduction of mobile technology has not caused or even increased students’ cheating behavior.
Like cheating, bullying predates the introduction of mobile technology (Pickett & Thomas, 2006). Cell phones are not the cause of such behavior, and banning them within the educational context because of the aforementioned concerns is not the solution to the problem. These problems existed before mobile technology, and will continue even if mobile technology is banned. Using cell phones to cheat and bully is merely the newest way to exhibit old behavior. 19
SMS and Education
Despite the concerns that arise when discussing the use of SMS technology in education (Thomas & Orthober, 2011), current literature shows beneficial outcomes that outweigh such concerns. In a study conducted in 2010 among Turkish University students, SMS technology was found to significantly increase posttest scores (Kert, 2011). Students were randomly separated into two equal groups: a control group who did not receive any SMS texts, and an experimental group who received 27 text messages over the course of their 7 week study. The text messages were used to enhance the learning taking place in the classroom, being described by the researchers as creating a “mixed learning environment” (Kert, 2011).
It is of interest to note that the students in the control group were given the same information as the experimental group in written form towards the end of the course. Therefore, both groups had all information available to them, but the SMS system of delivery was much more effective. In addition to the significant findings of positively increasing test scores, it was the researchers’ conclusion that wireless mobile technologies should be used to enhance learning because of their vast popularity, flexible characteristics, and ease of use (Kert, 2011).
The findings of the Turkish University study support similar findings of other research groups. The spring of 2011 marked the sixth consecutive semester of an SMS initiative at the Open University of Malaysia (Lim, Fadzi, & Mansor, 2011). This initiative was constructed to enhance blended learning technologies among undergraduate students. SMS technology was instrumental in five particular areas: administrative support, academic support, learner motivation enhancement, learner self-management development, and learning activities coordination. Learners noted in particular the 20
success of the program in reminding them regarding session dates and registration deadlines, receiving texts with important course content and information that helped them manage their studies better, and receiving motivational messages with short tips and techniques to help during challenging coursework assignments (Lim, Fadzi, & Mansor, 2011). As the title of their results indicates, researchers at the Open University of Malaysia found SMS technology equitable, effective, and sustainable. Given the fact that the school has continued the use of their SMS program for over six semesters demonstrates their belief in the study’s results.
While the study at the Open University of Malaysia did not attribute SMS technology with learning improvement (Lim, Fadzi & Mansor, 2011), research conducted at the University of Seville in 2006 did identify the use of SMS technology with helping university students to produce a significant improvement in their learning performance (Martinez-Torres, Toral, Barrero & Gallardo, 2007). The study was conducted using control and experimental lab instruction practices. Results indicated the SMS-based lab instruction had better features for learning performances than did the traditional labs. This study identified “motivation” as the most successful component of SMS technology, and corroborates a study done by The Open University United Kingdom which found mobile devices and SMS technology to be especially suited to and successful in motivating and alerting students (Kukulska-Hume, 2005).
Motivation and organization were also found to be key factors in a study of high school students conducted in 2008 (Thomas & Orthober, 2011). In this study, students were sent text messages reminding them of assignments, dates, and/or test material. Students’ responses showed that the convenience of the reminders they received were extremely helpful in ensuring that they came to class prepared and were enormously 21
valuable in contributing to their overall success in the course (Thomas & Orthober, 2011). The teachers in this study who sent the text messages felt texting was “extremely beneficial.” They found it helped students remember assignments and thus ensured that students were better prepared for class (Thomas & Orthober, 2011).
More SMS Uses
The benefits of SMS technology to motivate, organize, and improve learning performance among students are well documented. In addition to success in the educational field, however, SMS technology has proven effective in helping patients adhere to their complicated medical regimens (Puccio, Belzer, Olson, Martinez, Salata, Tucker, & Tanaka, 2006; Hardy, Kumar, Doros, Farmer, Drainoni, Rybin, & Skolnik, 2011), mobilizing people to vote (Dale & Strauss, 2009), encouraging and motivating participants in smoking cessation programs (Haug, Meyer, Schorr, Bauer, & John, 2009), and helping patients to keep medical appointments (Perron, Dao, Kossovsky, Miserez, Chuard, Calmy, & Gaspoz, 2010). A few of these programs will be discussed further.
SMS technology used in medical offices. As is stated by researchers of a study using a personalized cellular phone reminder system, “Adherence to antiretroviral therapy represents one of the strongest predictors of progression to AIDS, yet it is difficult for most patients to sustain high levels of adherence” (Hardy et al., 2011, p.154). Select patients were given cell phones on which they received daily text messaging reminders to take their medicine. Over a six-week trial period, researchers noted that patients’ who received text message reminders had a “significant result” and showed “robust differences” in their adherence to their medication regimen when compared to patients who did not receive text message reminders (p. 56). It is also of interest to note 22
that most patients reported a high satisfaction rate with the messages, and desired continuation of the reminder program.
SMS technology was also part of a three-month program to reduce missed appointments at a Primary Care Clinic in Switzerland (Perron et al., 2010). In 2007, the clinic reported a 22% missed appointment rate. To decrease this number, a program to remind patients of their upcoming appointments was put into place. It included phone calls, a text message or a postal note. Patients were randomly selected into either the control group (1,071) or the intervention group (1,052). The intervention significantly reduced the rate of missed appointment to 7.8% among specific consultation areas: General and Smoking Cessation. Although SMS technology was not the only factor in reducing the missed appointments, it was an integral part of the overall plan and contributed to its success.
SMS technology used as a mobilization tool. Whereas SMS technology in the medical field was used to remind patients of appointments and medical regimens to help patients fulfill previously made commitments, SMS technology also has been used to motivate the public to action.
A national field experiment during the 2006 election found text messaging had “a strong positive and statistically significant effect” in mobilizing voters (Dale & Strauss, 2009). Results showed a 4.1% increase in voter turnout nationwide, and an 11% increase in Utah. Researchers of this experiment identified several reasons text messaging was so effective. They noted that text messages are noticeable because mobile phones are still relatively uncluttered by unwanted “spam” messages, the nature of the display makes it difficult to ignore an incoming text message on most phones, and regular mobile users will be unlikely to miss the text message as they use their phones throughout the day. 23
Since the voters themselves signed up to receive the text messages, researchers concluded the messages had an even greater effect because voters already believed the messages to be important.
Text messages sent to voters varied in content by appealing to civic duty, claiming a close election where every vote counted, and informing the recipients of the closest voting location. Results showed it was not the message of the text which produced significant voter improvement, but rather the nature of the message via text, and the timing of the text which was sent within a few days of the election and on Election Day itself.
Social Media
Although SMS technology is widely used and has been proven successful in mobilizing, organizing, and motivating, it is not the only technology with a strong influence upon today’s teens. While teens love their phones, they also love social media. In order to create the most comprehensive program to motivate teens, then, both SMS technology and social media appear to be important components.
Teens and Facebook use. Net generation students are quite familiar with social software, which is defined as Internet software that “supports group interaction” (Vesienhaho et al, 2010). It has been documented that 80% off all Internet users visit social media sites, which would include 80% of all teens (Nielsen, 2011). The most popular social media site among teens is Facebook. According to current statistics provided by Facebook itself, the site documents over 800 million active users. Worldwide, one in every 13 people has a Facebook account with approximately 400 million users logging into their account every day (Facebook, 2011). The accessibility of Facebook through mobile technology, such as cell phones, is equally impressive. 24
According to self-reported statistics, more than 350 million active users currently access Facebook through their mobile devices. In addition to stationary computers, Nielsen reports 42% of teens access Facebook daily through their cell phones (Nielsen, 2011).
When specifically analyzing teen usage, Facebook stands as the most popular social media site in the world, reporting 159 million unique teen visitors per month. The next most popular sites of Twitter and MySpace only report 37 million and 24 million unique teen visitors per month respectively (Site Analytics, 2011).
Teachers and educators are beginning to explore the possibilities of the social media web phenomenon to increase and enhance classroom learning activities. From a blended learning point of view, social software provides interesting opportunities to support learning. Benefits of using Facebook include its popularity among teens, the ability teens have to already use the program, the ease of updating and posting for teachers, and the economic benefit of not having to purchase or install specific software (Ferdig, 2007).
Summary
Social media like Facebook and SMS technology are integrated within a majority of teens’ lives. This study sought to blend learning opportunities which combine such technology with traditional classroom instruction.
Although current literature does not contain specific information regarding SMS technology and social media related to religious education, the review of current educational and other varied uses of such technology to motivate, organize, and inform is substantial. With social media and SMS technology becoming increasingly popular among teens, it stood to reason that embracing and exploiting such technology was a positive direction to pursue. 25
In addition, there does not appear to be any research, religious or otherwise, which studies the implementation of a social media and SMS combined program. Research is restricted to one or the other. This study sought to break new ground in discovering results from a combined program. 26
Chapter 3
Methodology
This study explored the effects of SMS technology and social media contact outside of seminary classes on students’ daily scripture reading. This combination of technology was analyzed to determine which method was most preferred by students, and whether or not its implementation increased scripture study frequency and/or duration of scripture reading. In addition, I gathered feedback from participating students and teachers to analyze which factors, if any, were most effective in increasing daily scripture study.
Research Design
The specific scripture reading reminder program which was implemented, hereafter referred to as “the program,” consisted of seminary students receiving a daily mass distributed text, and a daily Facebook post. It is important to note that for the safety of the students and teachers, no personal or direct communication between students and teachers was ever utilized during this program. Text messages were sent via a mass texting website which does not allow students to respond. As a reference, many banks utilize this type of SMS communication to alert customers of low bank balances or other issues regarding their account. The technology is one-way communication only, with the recipient not being able to respond to the alerts.
Text messages. I sent a text message every day, the contents of which varied. The message contained a variety of the following information: 1) a reminder to read their scriptures that day, 2) a suggested scripture block to read for their next class period, and/or 3) motivational quotes from prophets or apostles. Although each message varied, they were all kept relatively short since the text could only be 148 characters. A record of all messages can be found in Appendix A.27
Cell phone text messages were sent in a mass text format with all students receiving the same message. I did not individualize the messages for the class or student. Messages were limited to scripture reading motivation and did not contain personal messages in any way from me to the individual student. It was my original intent to find teachers willing to send the messages themselves to their students; however, this was not possible. The teachers who volunteered to be part of this study felt their participation should be limited to simply reminding students to mark their calendars, and wanted me to create the text messages for all students, so each text would be the same for every student participating in the program, regardless of the teacher they had. I agreed that this approach would better identify the program as the catalyst for the change in reading, rather than the teacher.
Facebook posts. Cell phone texts were meant to contain short messages with reminders and inspiration. The Facebook posts, however, allowed students to receive more lengthy information. As with the cell texts, the content of the Facebook posts was updated for the general student population and was not customized for any particular student or class. No student received any individualized communication, and the Facebook page was set up so that students could not comment on the postings. It was for information purposes only, and was not a forum for discussion. The content of the Facebook post contained any of the following: 1) a motivational quote from church leaders encouraging students to read, 2) information or links to church-approved sites that may help students understand difficult scriptural passages, or 3) full text of scripture verses and information to help students.
Participants
Teachers. Four full-time seminary teachers were selected for this program based on willingness to be involved and demographic criteria. A mix of teachers, rather than four very similar teachers, allowed the program to be evaluated on its own merits, rather than on the skills 28
of any one type of teacher who implemented it. Two of the teachers selected were fairly new to teaching, only having 1-3 years of experience each. Of these teachers, one had only 3 classes, while the other had 6. Two of the teachers were seasoned teachers who had many years of experience each. Three teachers were male, and one was female. The female teacher is married with grown children, and is the only female in the school district who is both married and a mother. She has had 11 years of experience. The other seasoned teacher is male and has been teaching for over 30 years.
The four seminary teachers who participated in this program had a total of 21 classes amongst them. Approximately 525 students in those classes were presented with the opportunity to participate in the program. Of these 525 students, 175 chose to sign up, representing 33% taking part in the program. Although it was not a formal question anywhere on the survey or within the program, as I presented the program to the students, there were approximately 3-5 students in each class who said they could not participate because they did not have a phone. Assuming an average of 4 students per class who could not participate because they did not have a phone, the percentage of potential students who could, and did, sign up to participate in each class increased to 39%.
Due to students changing classes and other forms of attrition, the final number of students who participated and filled out a survey regarding the program was 151. Unfortunately, of those 151, only 118 kept track of their calendars, and could return both a completed survey and a calendar for analysis. (See Appendix B and C for surveys and calendars.) The students who filled out a survey, but who had misplaced their calendars or filled them out incorrectly, were able to give opinions about their experience with the program; however, no data could be analyzed to support their claims of either increase or decrease in their scripture study. Therefore, 29
for the surveys without calendars, only their opinions regarding the program were calculated into the results.
Students. Only students in the seminary classes of the four participating teachers were given the opportunity to take part in the program. All other students in different seminary teachers’ classes at this high school were not given the opportunity to participate. Students from grades 9-12 were included in each of the classes, with each class having a mix of all grades.
Since the program was strictly voluntary, and students in each class were assigned randomly, the number of participating students in each grade level was unknown previous to the implementation of the program. The following chart shows information regarding the grade level and gender of the participants in raw numbers, not percentages. Actual numbers are shown in parentheses underneath the grade level.
Figure 1. Graph showing gender and grade level participation in raw numbers.
The largest number of participants came from the freshman and sophomore classes, with 47 and 49 participants respectively. In both of those classes, females outnumbered the males. The junior class had the fewest number of participants overall and the largest difference between
0
20
40
60
Freshman
(30/17)
Sophomore
(30/19)
Junior
(19/8)
Senior
(15/14)
Gender and Grade Level Participation in Raw Numbers
Male
Female30
males and females with 19 females and only 8 males participating. The seniors had only one more participant than the juniors; however, their female/male ratio was much closer at 15/14. Overall, with n=150, 62% of participants were female, and 38% were male.
Duration
The duration of the scripture reading motivation program was 5 weeks. However, the baseline data of students’ scripture reading habits was gathered for 6 weeks prior to the implementation of the program, thus making data gathering 11 weeks in total. Baseline scripture reading data began August 24, 2012, and ended October 8. Students were not told of the upcoming program during this time; they merely marked how many minutes they read on their calendars for each day of the month. It is assumed that gathering daily scripture reading data previous to the implementation of the program did not skew results, as it is common practice for seminary teachers to collect scripture reading information on a regular basis. During the last few days of September 2012, the consent forms were distributed and collected.
There was an unforeseen delay of approximately 5 days in getting the motivational texts operational. Texts were not sent immediately due to federal laws which require the SMS provider which was used to distribute the texts to verify that the information from the program was requested by the users and the information being sent was not unwanted “spam.” Therefore, text messages and Facebook posts did not start until October 9, 2012. Students continued to keep track of their reading on the calendars they were provided throughout the duration of the program, which ended on November 10, 2012. During the week directly after the data gathering ended, participating teachers, parents and students received a survey to complete regarding the program. All commitments to the research from seminary teachers and students ended November 10, 2012.31
Research Perspective
This project employed a use of mixed methods to gather information. Although the primary focus of this project was to discover whether students’ scripture reading increased (a quantitative issue), it was also important to discover the students’ responses and opinions of the program in general (a more qualitative issue). A systematic charting of scripture reading habits were used to gather the quantitative data, and a survey was used to gather more in-depth quantitative as well as the qualitative data.
Participation in this program was with seminary teachers and high school students enrolled in a release time seminary program at a public high school in the western United States. Participation was voluntary, with no extrinsic rewards, and required the parental consent of all students involved. Students were given an oral explanation in their seminary classroom, as well as a written explanation of the program with a consent form to sign (Appendix D and E ). When they agreed to participate, students received a letter outlining the program for their parents/guardians (Appendix F). Attached to this letter was a consent form for parents/guardians to sign and acknowledge their student’s participation. Both the student and parental consent forms were required before the student could participate in the program. The program required submittal and use of students’ email and telephone numbers, which were only used for this scripture reminder program.
At no point in this program was there a reciprocal exchange of information to foster a relationship between the students and the seminary teachers or myself. The postings and texts were for information purposes only and all communication was solely directed one way from myself to the student. Students were free to discuss any concerns or problems about the program with their teachers at any time in the seminary building or during their appointed seminary class time. Parents were able to email or phone me to communicate at any time. Parents were32
encouraged to register to receive the same text alerts and social media notifications as their students so were aware of all communication occurring within this program’s framework. Parents could sign up for the program on the consent form. A total of 54 parents signed up to participate with their students.
Data Gathering and Instrumentation
In order for this program to be analyzed correctly, detailed data gathering was needed. The four teachers participating were instructed to remind all students to write the minutes they read their scriptures on their special calendars for this program. Keeping track of scripture reading is not a new concept to students, as this is something they are required to do on a regular basis. However, this program did require students to report more frequently than is sometimes done in the classroom.
In order to ensure anonymity, every student in each of the 21 classes (3 teachers with 6 classes each, 1 teacher with 3 classes) was given a 4-month calendar with a number: 001-300 (Appendix C). All students in each of these 21 classes kept track of their scripture reading throughout the program’s duration, regardless of whether or not they were participating in receiving text messages or Facebook posts.
On their individual calendars, students marked how many minutes they read each day. After the program ended, each student stapled their numbered survey to their reading charts for me to analyze. I was immediately able to sort through participants and non-participants based on which side of the survey they filled out. One side of the paper had questions regarding the program, and the other side had questions related to seminary in general. This way all students were actively writing and participating in a survey. Having both surveys being answered at the same time gave anonymity to students participating in the program. At the end of survey taking, all students stapled their surveys to their calendars. If they did not participate in the program, 33
their scripture reading data was not calculated, and their calendar was discarded. In addition to scripture reading percentages, the calendar and post-program survey enabled me to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The survey was given to each student during their seminary class, stapled to their reading charts, and collected by the teacher on the same day the survey was distributed (Appendix B).
The four seminary teachers who participated in the program were given a separate survey tailored to their specific involvement (Appendix G). An informal discussion with the teachers provided insight into how to improve this program. The original intent of this project was to conduct a semi-structured interview with all participating teachers. Unfortunately, the teachers were not available for a more structured group interview; however, their informal opinions have been documented in a later chapter.
I had originally intended to conduct a semi-structured group interview with potential students if I felt this type of information was needed. Unfortunately, there were several obstacles in getting surveys collected to determine if this type of interview was needed. The deadline for having all information collected before Thanksgiving break 2012 prevented me from conducting this interview. I felt, however, that this interview would not have produced significantly different information than what was collected on the student surveys. As with the teachers, informal discussions did take place in which students approached me with insights and information, which has been documented in the next chapters.
Parents were also given the opportunity to give feedback. Approximately 36% of students who participated had parents who also participated. On the letter of consent, parents gave their email addresses, which were used to send a short parent survey. This survey revealed how parents felt about the program (Appendix H). Despite the large number of parents participating, only 9 parents took the opportunity to voice any opinion of the program. Their 34
responses are documented in the next chapter. I had hoped parents would provide more insight since gaining their approval and consent for the program is a key factor in its potential permanent implementation.
The following chart was used as an organizational instrument to align my data gathering tools with the specific research questions posed in this project.
Research Question
Literature
Data gathering tool
1. Does receiving daily text message reminders increase the frequency of seminary students’ scripture reading?
(How many days they read.)
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011)
Naismith, L.,et al (2004)
Sharples, M. (2003)
Harris Interactive. (2008)
Quantitative data gathered through analysis of monthly calendars, and questions 3, 4 and 5 on student survey.
2. Does receiving daily text message reminders increase duration of seminary students’ scripture reading? (How many minutes per day they read.)
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011)
Naismith, L.,et al (2004)
Sharples, M. (2003)
Harris Interactive. (2008)
Quantitative data gathered through analysis of monthly calendars, and questions 3,4, and 5 on student survey.
3. Does receiving Facebook messages of inspiration and specific scripture passages increase students’ scripture reading?
Ferdig, R. (2007)
Harris Interactive. (2008)
Naismith, L.,et al (2004)
Nielsen Corporation. (2011)
Vesisenaho, M., et al., (2010)
Quantitative data gathered through analysis of monthly calendars, and questions 6, 7, and 8 on student survey.
4. What elements of the scripture reading reminder program work best toward achieving the goal of increased daily scripture reading?
Harris Interactive. (2008)
Nielsen Corporation. (2011)
Sharples, M. (2003).
Lenhart, A., et al, (2009).
Quantitative and Qualitative data from the following: Student Survey 3-10, Teacher Survey questions 1,2,3 and 4; Parent Survey questions 1-8.
Figure 2. Research question analysis chart.35
The research was conducted as outlined with a few minor variations. The following chapters discuss the findings and answer the research questions. 36
Chapter 4
Results
Results of the study show a greater percentage of students participating in the program use SMS Technology (texting) over Facebook, enjoy receiving and reading the messages, but they did not show statistically significant improvement in their scripture reading attributable to the program, even when evaluated according to gender and grade level in school.
Texting vs. Facebook
All participating students were given the opportunity to be involved in the program via text messages, Facebook, or both. Parents of the students were also invited to participate. Figure 3 shows how students and parents chose to take part in the program. Category definitions are provided, with the number of participants in each category included in parentheses.
Facebook: The students (65) or parents (11) who signed up to receive Facebook messages. This includes students who saw Facebook messages exclusively, or who received text messages as well as Facebook posts. This category is anyone who saw any Facebook posts at all.
Text Messages: The students (119) and parents (46) who signed up to receive text messages. This includes students who received text messages exclusively and the students who used both texting and Facebook. This category is anyone who received text messages during the program.
Both Text and Facebook: This category includes all students (33) and parents (3) who did both parts of the program. They received both the text messages and viewed the Facebook posts.
Facebook Only: The students (32) and parents (8) who exclusively participated via Facebook and did not receive text messages at all.37
Texting Only: The students (86) and parents (43) who exclusively participated in texting, and did not participate in receiving any Facebook posts at all.
Figure 3. Graph showing how students and parents participated in the scripture reading reminder program.
The highest percentage of participation came from students and parents who chose to receive daily text messages, with 93% of students and 85% of parents involved in the program choosing this method. Fifty-percent of students participated in Facebook; however, approximately half of those students also received text messages. Students who chose Facebook only, without the addition of text messages accounted for 25%, with 14% of their parents participating this way. The percentage of participants who chose both methods of scripture reading reminders was 25% of students and 3% of parents.
Student Reporting
Frequency of reading. Students reported the number of days read on their monthly calendars. They were expected to write how many minutes per day they read, rather than just an indication of whether or not they read, which is discussed later. An example of the calendar is included as Appendix C. The number of days they read were counted and compared with the number of days reported prior to the program’s implementation. Figure 4 shows the actual
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Facebook
(65/11)
Text Messages
(119/46)
Both Text & FB
(33/3)
Facebook ONLY
(32/8)
Texting ONLY
(86/43)
How Students and Parents Participated
Students (n=151)
Parents (n=54)38
percentage of increase, decrease, or neutrality in the frequency of their reading. It also shows a comparison between how often they actually read, compared with their self-reported feelings of how they felt they read.
Frequency % of Student Scripture Reading
Actual Percentage Taken from Calendars
Student Self-reporting on Survey
Increased
51%
16% of “Increased” reported it did not help their reading.
Stayed the Same
11%
33% of “Neutral” reported it increased their reading.
Decreased
38%
42% of “Decreased” reported it increased their reading.
Figure 4. Chart showing frequency (how many days read) percentages of student scripture reading from actual numbers and from self-reported numbers.
Duration of reading. As stated earlier, students also kept track of how many minutes per day they read. These minutes were totaled and compared with the number of minutes per day they read prior to the program being implemented. Thus, potential for improvement in either how many days students read, or how many minutes they read were each taken into consideration. Although both areas showed at least half of the students increasing and improving their reading, neither aspect of improvement was statistically significant. Figure 5 shows how many minutes students read.39
Duration (minutes read)% of Student Scripture Reading
Actual Percentage Taken From Calendars
Student Self-Reporting on Survey
Increased
50%
28% of “Increased” reported it did not help their reading.
Stayed the Same
2%
66% of “Neutral” reported it increased their reading.
Decreased
48%
46% of “Decreased” reported it increased their reading.
Figure 5. Chart showing duration (how many minutes read per day) percentages of student scripture reading from actual numbers and from self-reported numbers.
No statistically significant results. Several statistical tests were run on the data to analyze the effectiveness of the program. Both T-test and ANOVA analysis was done; however, no results proved statistically significant. The correlations run were between the dependent variable (change in minutes read from pre to post) and other variables such as class, gender, and their like/dislike of the experience. In each case there was little to no correlation found between the variables. Specifics of tests are provided below showing no correlation between gender and success in the program, as well as year in school and success in the program.
An independent sample T-test was conducted to determine if there were differences between males and females in the amount of time they read. Results indicate that there was not a significant difference between males (M= -1.34; SD=11) and females (M= -1.67; SD=15) in terms of how much they read [t (151)=.133, p = .894]. The results were statistically insignificant, showing both genders were statistically equal.
Likewise, a one-way ANOVA was run comparing each of the grade levels (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior) in the amount of time students read their scriptures pre and post program. There were no differences between the four classes in the change on the amount of 40
time spent reading [F (3)=1.733, p=.162]. In other words, it did not matter which grade was analyzed; each grade did not have statistically significant increase in reading, nor were they significantly different from each other.
Student Survey Responses
Surveys were given to all students who participated in the program (Appendix B). Approximately 118 surveys were returned with calendars containing useable data. The surveys utilized a Likert scale for students to identify to what extent they participated and the effectiveness of each part of the program. There were also two open-ended questions for which students could voice opinions, concerns, and recommendations for program improvement.
Reading texts and Facebook posts. The two graphs below identify student responses for how often they read the text messages and viewed the Facebook posts. The text messages received far more participation than Facebook, with 85% of the students viewing the texts either “always” or “most of the time.” Facebook posts were viewed “always” or “most of the time” only 39% of the time. Facebook had 25% of the students viewing it “rarely,” compared with only 4% of the text messages being read only “rarely.”
Figure 6. Graph showing in percentages how often students reported reading the text reminders.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Always
(45%)
Most of the Time
(40%)
Sometimes
(10%)
Rarely
(4%)
Never
(1%)
Did You Read the Text Reminders? (%) 41
Figure 7. Graph showing in percentages how often students reported reading the Facebook posts.
Perceived effectiveness. The students had a chance to relate how they felt the program worked for them. This data does not represent actual numbers regarding their scripture study; rather, this data is how the students believed the program helped. When compared to the actual numbers their perception is quite a bit different from reality. For the most part, students like the text messages and believe they did help to increase their scripture reading. Very few students felt the program did not help. Although fewer students felt the Facebook posts were effective in increasing their scripture study, the students overwhelmingly “liked” or “loved” the posts. Figures 8 and 9 show the perceived texting and Facebook effectiveness as self-reported by the students.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Always
(5%)
Most of the Time
(34%)
Someties
(35%)
Rarely
(25%)
Never
(1%)
Did you read the Facebook Posts? (%) 42
Figure 8. Graph showing students’ perceived text messaging effectiveness in raw numbers, not percentages.
Figure 9. Graph showing students’ perceived Facebook effectiveness in raw numbers, not percentages.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Loved Receiving/
They Helped (20)
Liked Receiving/
Moderate Help (51)
Liked Receiving/
No Help (39)
Didn't Like/
Did Help (1)
Didn't Like/
Didn't Help (2)
Students' Perceived Text Messaging Effectiveness in Raw Numbers, N= 113
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Loved Receiving/
They Helped (13)
Liked Receiving/
Moderate Help (20)
Liked Receiving/
No Help (26)
Didn't Like/
Did Help (1)
Didn't Like/
Didn't Help (1)
Students' Perceived Facebook Effectiveness in Raw Numbers N=61 43
Student recommended changes. Two open-ended questions on the survey allowed the students to voice their opinion and encouraged them to specifically state the ways in which they would change the program if they felt something needed changing. Answers were coded according to the emergent themes of their responses and are listed below. Overall, 48% of students who gave an answer to these questions felt there was no need for change. The largest request for any change was regarding the time of day the text was sent, with 15% of students suggesting modification to the program in this area. The remaining coded responses to the questions for program improvement are presented in Figure 9.
Definitions of codes are provided here with several examples to help the reader better understand the coding system. A listing of all responses can be found in Appendix I.
Change nothing: The vast majority of students felt the program was great as is, and had no suggestions for improvement or change. Students reported, “I wouldn’t change anything, it really helped me a lot,” “I wouldn't change it at all because it was really good,” and “Thank you! It was an amazing program!”
Text more often: Five students wanted multiple texts per day, not just one.
Text earlier in the day: Of all responses on how to change the program, this category received the most with 21. Students felt the time texts were sent (at 9:00 p.m. daily) came too late in the evening and would have preferred an earlier time to receive them. An example of a response from this category is: “The text messages came a little too late at night. By the time I received the message, my plans for the rest of the day were already set.” Another responded in much the same way, “Earlier messages, I found that because the texts came so late, I was busy and it was hard to find the time.”
Never got texts: Many students signed up for the program, but because of texts being blocked, or because their phone plans were with a blacklisted phone carrier, they never received 44
the message. Although only seven students reported this on their surveys, approximately 28 phone numbers were identified as not receiving the messages. More on this subject is explored in the analysis portion of this paper.
Want program longer: Six students reported they would like to have had the program go longer and did not want it to end. Responses in this category included “I would like to keep doing this,” and “I would just like the messages to continue.”
More scripture: This category included seven responses from students who felt the program focused too much on encouragement to read, and not enough on what to read. They would rather have been given specific instructions on where to read, rather than a focus on why they should read. Responses in this category included, “Instead of being quotes sent out, you should send out real scriptures that you should read. Example: Mark 1:5” and “Giving more suggestions on where to read with the usual quote.”
Don’t like/use Facebook: Seven students responded that they did not participate in the Facebook portion of the program because they simply did not like it, and did not use it.
More quotes/topic: Five students reported they did not like having specific scriptures to read and would rather have been told why they should read instead of what to read. (For the reader’s information, 80-90% of text messages were quotations from apostles explaining the importance of scripture reading.) Responses in this category include, “Reminders why I SHOULD and not just scriptures to read,” and “Have more inspirational quotes because I found that I didn't have a lot of time to read the recommended scriptures, so quotes would be nice instead so I would still be spiritually fed.” In addition, several students reported they would like to have been able to subscribe to certain topics, such as the second coming, and receive messages or scriptures only about that specific topic. 45
Other: Responses that could not be grouped in other categories are listed here. Some of the suggestions included wanting a different calendar system, wanting teachers to remind them to fill out their calendars more, and a desire for students to be more involved with pictures or activities.
Figure 10. Graph showing responses from student survey regarding how students would change the program. Answers are in raw numbers, not percentages.
Teacher surveys. Three out of the four teachers returned a survey regarding the program. The fourth teacher was called away on a special assignment and was unable to be reached to fill out a formal survey. This teacher, however, did express to me several times how his students loved the program and felt it was a worthwhile endeavor. This teacher also expressed how several of his students on different occasions would stand in front of the class to express how a text they had received the night before had made an impact on their lives. A full report of the teachers’ answers to survey questions can be found in Appendix J.
The three teachers who did return a survey expressed concern over a couple of issues. First, they were concerned that the calendar system used was confusing to the students since they
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
How Students Would Change the Program in Raw Numbers 46
were being asked to keep track of two calendars at the same time. One was a full-page calendar for this program in which they needed to write how many minutes, and the second was a very small 2 x 3 inch calendar for the seminary in which they merely made an “X” indicating if they had read at all for any particular day. Some students got confused, and marked only an “X” on the program calendar, instead of how many minutes they had read. Secondly, a teacher expressed an opinion that depending on the teacher, and how hard that teacher encouraged scripture reading, you would not be able to distinguish whether an increase in scripture reading came from the program, from the teacher’s encouragement, or a combination of both.
All teachers believed the program was beneficial and reported hearing only positive comments from their students. In addition to the teacher who was mentioned above, two other teachers also reported students sharing what they had learned with their classmates during their seminary classes when giving the daily thought or devotional. Overall, no specific numbers were given as to how many conversations were overheard, or how many times students spoke fondly of the program; it was just generally reported as a positive influence on their students.
Parent surveys. Although parents were twice sent the survey via email, only 9 of the 54 surveys sent were returned (Appendix H). Similar to the students, they were asked to rate the program on a Likert scale, and then were given open-ended questions where they could voice their thoughts regarding the program, and give suggestions for improvement.
Figure 11 illustrates the results of the returned survey questions regarding the parents’ overall experience with texting and their opinion of their student’s overall experience with the program. The highest number possible on the scale was a 7. These parents felt the program was a positive experience, with only 2 of the 9 respondents rating the experience below a 6 out of the highest possible score of seven. Only 1 of the 9 parents who returned a survey participated in Facebook and scored the experience a 6.5 out of 7 on the scale. All other parents only 47
participated with texting. The numbers on the bottom of the graph represent each survey that was returned. The parent survey #5 shows only the parent’s experience since the student did not receive the texts.
Figure 11. Graph showing the parents experience with texting and their perceived view of the program’s effectiveness with their child.
Figure 12 shows the responses to the questions, “Do you feel the program helped the students increase their scripture study frequency?” and “Do you feel the program helped you increase your scripture study frequency?” The graph indicates the majority of parents felt the program helped them to increase their reading frequency, more so than their perception of the program changing their students’ reading frequency. Since parents did not keep track of a reading calendar and no actual data was collected, the only information gathered was the perception of their reading frequency. Parent number 5 did not respond to either question.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Parent
Survey#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Parents Experience with Texting, and Students’ Overall Experience
(From parents' point of view)
Parent Text
Experience
Student
Experiece
Likert Scale
1 = Extremely Negative
7= Extremely Positive48
Figure 12. Graph showing the parents self-reported increase in their own scripture study and the perceived effectiveness of the program with their child.
Responses to the open-ended questions regarding their experience were generally positive. They were asked what they liked about the program and what they would change. The following table shows their responses to these questions.
Parent Survey #
What did you like?
What would you change?
1
Great reminders of prophet’s counsel
I would change nothing.
2
Good reminder
(No response)
3
I loved the reminder text for the kids. I also sent the text to my 8th grader.
I wouldn’t change anything. I think it was a great program.
4
It was a simple, yet effective reminder for those days when I hadn’t yet done my scriptures.
Nothing
5
(No response)
My daughter never received the text messages & we tried to go to the text support address but she still never received any 
6
The reminders were good, but I especially appreciated the quotes about the importance of scripture reading and how to get more out of scripture reading.
The text reminders usually came at 9pm for me, after I had already read my scriptures that day. It might be more helpful to vary the times of the reminders: i.e. early, midday, or evening.
7
The quotes themselves were very motivational
Nothing
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Parent
Survey#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Perceived Increase in Parent and Student Reading Frequency
(from parents’ point of view)
Student Increase
Parent Increase
Likert Scale
1= Had no Effect
7 = Very Helpful49
8
Daily accountability
(No response)
9
The quotations from the prophets and other general authorities were inspiring ad the daily text reminded me to read my scriptures if I had not yet done so. I read more often and for longer periods as a result of the text messages.
It seems that the text reminders came at various times. It would be best for me if they came within a consistent timeframe, ideally in the evening so that I could read right when I received the message.
Figure 13. Table showing responses to open-ended questions on parent survey.
Ironically the only advice for changing the program was to either vary the time of the text or to have the text more consistently delivered at a specific time of night. These conflicting responses are addressed in Chapter 5.
Conclusion. Further analysis of the results of this study will show that although there exists no statistical correlation between the scripture study program and the increased frequency or duration of scripture study among participants, the results of the data do yield important information regarding the program, its components, and its participants. 50
Chapter 5
Analysis
Analysis of the data shows students, regardless of gender or class standing, did not increase their reading frequency or duration due to the scripture reading reminder program. Significant information, however, was learned regarding the type of program students prefer and how this program can be improved.
Students prefer texting. The highest percentage of participation came from students and parents who chose to receive daily text messages, with 93% of students involved in the program choosing this method. Fifty-percent of students participated in Facebook; however, approximately half of those students also received text messages. Thus, students who chose Facebook only, without the addition of text messages, comprised only 25%, clearly showing the majority of students preferring to receive text messages over Facebook posts.
Further evidence of the texting preference is seen when students reported how often they either read the texts or viewed the Facebook posts. In the “Always Read” category, texting received 45% and Facebook received only 5%. The numbers are switched when students reported “Rarely” reading the texts only 5% of the time, while “Rarely” reading Facebook posts a much higher 25% of the time.
From this data, it can be assumed that although half of the students signed up to receive Facebook posts, the majority of the students did not read them consistently and definitely favored texting over Facebook. A future program used to remind students to read their scriptures may be better served to focus on text messages rather than Facebook posts or a combination of both methods. That being said, it is important to note that 48% of students reported they would “change nothing” about the program. 51
Perception vs. reality. Quantitative analysis was done with the student calendars to compare scripture reading frequency and duration pre and post program. These definitive numbers indicated whether or not there was an increase. For the frequency of days the students read, 51% showed an increase, while 38% showed a decrease. For duration of reading, 50% showed an increase, and 48% showed a decrease. Since the students were also given the opportunity to voice whether or not they felt the program was helpful to them, and whether or not they felt it was increasing their scripture study, actual numbers can be compared with the students’ perception of the program (Figure 4 and Figure 5).
It is interesting to note that for the students whose numbers showed a decrease in reading frequency and duration, approximately half of those students believed the program had actually increased their reading. Additionally, of the students whose numbers showed an increase in their reading frequency, 16% felt it did not help them at all, while 28% of the students who indicated an increase in duration felt it did not help them.
It is difficult to interpret what this disparity between perception and reality means to a program such as this, other than to say this highlights a problem with any self-reported data. Perhaps the best lesson to be learned is that students do not analyze their own actions very accurately, and raw data is especially needed in evaluating the effectiveness of the program. It is also important to note, however, that in my experience, teens give more weight to what they feel rather than what raw numbers reveal.
Gender and age. I assumed the results of this program would show a difference between males and females, and in the grade level of the students. It was assumed that perhaps senior boys would take the reading more seriously as they prepare for missionary service, or that girls would enjoy the text messages more which would lead to increased reading. The results, however, show that neither gender nor age made any difference in this study. The fact that senior 52
boys, for example, are not reading scriptures any more than freshmen girls is perhaps a sign that these boys need more encouragement and motivation in their efforts to prepare for a mission, or perhaps there could be a new appreciation for how hard freshmen girls are studying. I believe a limitation of this study is the amount of students participating, and there may yet be differences in this area given a study with a larger number of participants.
Females and younger grades. Although the results of the study show no grade had a statistically significant increase in scripture reading, it is interesting to note that the younger grades (freshmen and sophomores) participated more than the upper grades, and girls outnumbered boys in every grade level. It is not known whether this is a representative sample of the percentages already existing in the seminary classes (perhaps there are more females and more freshmen and sophomores enrolled in seminary in the first place), or if these percentages indicate who is most interested in participating in this type of study.
Two areas would be helpful in further understanding the percentages of participating students in the program. These areas are more analysis of seminary enrollment and class demographics (which I was not approved to analyze) and survey responses from all class members indicating reasons why students chose not to participate. The latter was not possible as no survey could have been given to students without parental consent, and this was not part of this program.
Implementation Challenges
Consent forms. The scripture reading reminder program relied heavily on students, parents, and teachers working together to make it a success. The first implementation challenge was getting the students and parents to sign and return the consent forms. Although I sent the forms via email to parents, as well as sending a physical copy of the forms home with each of the 53
potential participating students, many students struggled to remember to bring the signed forms back to their teachers.
I also provided a small chocolate candy incentive and reminder emails to parents; however, many students did not return the permission forms on time. Approximately a dozen forms were returned almost as the program was ending, which meant the student had not received the text messages, nor participated via Facebook. Therefore, they could not be included in the research. After hearing positive reports from their peers regarding the program, many students contacted me to see if they could still participate, but unfortunately they could not. It was made clear to the students via personal presentation by me, email, and on the consent forms that they needed to be returned within a certain time frame, and if not returned, they could not participate in the program. At least two parents contacted me to express interest in their child participating, but did not have a phone or access to the Internet. I explained the focus of the program was to analyze SMS technology and social media; therefore, there was no way to have their children involved without access to those things.
Keeping calendars updated. I did not have control over how strictly the seminary teachers enforced student data recording, nor how diligent students were in recording such data. Some students took their calendars home, rather than leaving them in their seminary cubby, and they were lost. Other students either misunderstood, or did not take the time to read the instructions on the calendars, which clearly stated they needed to write down how many minutes they had read each day. Some students merely put an “X” or a check mark to indicate they read, but did not indicate how many minutes were read. While three out of the four teachers were diligent in having students mark their calendars, they were not specific in reminding students to mark how long they had read. One teacher in the program did not understand it was his job to 54
remind the students to mark their calendars, so his classes did not get the reminder like the other participating students did.
Facebook posts. The Facebook component of the study required students to actively log on to Facebook in order to receive information. Although some students were in the habit of checking Facebook daily, many students did not make the effort to log on specifically for retrieving the seminary reminder program messages. A small handful of students even stated they could not find the Facebook page they were supposed to sign up on. Although the page was listed on the consent forms, those forms were handed back into me, so the information was not easily accessible to the students.
Blocks and blacklisted cell phone carriers. Certain restrictions and blocks on cell phones posed a major problem with this program. Although students signed up to receive text messages, their cellular plan’s parental controls blocked the messages from ever being received. Many parents use these controls to block unknown phone numbers from contacting their children. If the blocks are not removed, the students will not receive the texts. Although I went to each classroom and explained the situation with the blocking on the phones, and how their parents could unblock the messages, there were still some parents who were unable or unwilling to remove the block from the phone plan. Approximately a dozen students had their number blocked from receiving SMS messages thus preventing students who had wanted to participate from receiving texts.
In addition to parental phone blocks, many students had cell plans with blacklisted carriers. Blacklisting was explained to me by the TXT180 company which sent the text messages as follows:
Certain carriers that the major wireless carriers don't really like that much, and therefore they are blacklisted. None of the major carriers such as Verizon, Sprint, 55
AT&T or T-Mobile are considered ‘blacklisted’. Rather, they do the blacklisting. The major blacklisted carriers are Google Voice and L3 Communications. Rarely do you find a customer, unless they are on Google Voice or L3 that is blacklisted. (personal communication, October 3, 2012)
Although considered rare, a number of students had a blacklisted carrier for their wireless service, so they were also unable to participate, despite their willingness. Thus, approximately 28-32 students who had wanted to participate in the program, could not because their phones either had blocked the messages, or their phone carrier was blacklisted, and they could not receive the messages.
Timing of the program. This program started at the beginning of the school year, and continued until Thanksgiving break of 2012. Unfortunately throughout this time period, many factors were involved which could have skewed the effectiveness of the reminders. For instance, as soon as the program was implemented, the students had almost a week off of school for Fall Break. Many students were traveling with their families on vacations and were not able to connect to the Internet for the Facebook messages.
There was also an almost universal drop in scripture reading when Halloween and the end of the school term occurred at end of October. During this time many students were cramming for end-of-term tests. In addition, the start date of the study was delayed while the school was involved in the high school football State Championships. The seminary teachers felt it was not the right time for me to explain the program while a significant number of students were not in class.
In addition, student teachers were teaching at particular times throughout the duration of the program, which impacted when I could speak to classes and the opportunity to have their permanent teachers remind students to mark their calendars. In hindsight, I should have spoken 56
with the principal of the school to identify any school days that could be affected by such issues and planned the research presentations to the classes accordingly. Ideally, the scripture reading reminder program would have lasted at least two or three months rather than just five weeks to absorb some of the extraneous variables influencing the project.
In hindsight, a control population should have been used to compare the increase or decrease in scripture reading with students who were participating in the program. Without the benefit of a control group, it is impossible to see whether there was a natural decrease in reading across the board at certain times, such as end-of-term. Had a control group been used, we might have seen the program helping students who would otherwise have seen a decrease of reading without the program.
Limitations of the Study
Socioeconomic status. Participants in this program come from a neighborhood which can be classified as middle to upper-middle class. Relatively few students did not have cell phones or access to the internet; therefore, the results of this program would not be applicable to all seminary students unless they come from similar socio economic areas. In addition, the city where these students live boasts an 88% LDS membership, which is extremely rare for members of the worldwide LDS Church (Utah Census, 2010). Therefore, this program opens the door to understanding what seminary students might want to see in a scripture reading reminder program, however, given the demographics of the participants, this information may not be applicable church-wide.
Duration. As stated previously, the duration of this program likely did not lend itself to adequate measurement of the program’s effectiveness. Many external factors affected the students at the time this program took place. The external factors, such as end-of-term, would have had less of an impact on the study if the study had been for a longer period.57
Recommendations for Future Research
After completing the scripture reading reminder program and analyzing the data contained therein, several areas of further research are recommended. In addition, there are lessons learned in the implementation of such a program which would be helpful to future researchers.
Time of text messages. Of the students who commented on the program, 48% indicated they liked or loved the program just exactly the way it was, and would not change anything (Figure 9). In fact, there were no negative comments about the program, only personal suggestions on how it could improve (Appendix I). The most requested change to the program, with 15% of the students indicating this on their survey, was a desire for text messages to come earlier in the day (Figure 9). Having teenagers myself, I had assumed 9 p.m. would be an ideal time for text messages to be received. Although the great majority of students did feel this was the best time, it would be important for future applications of a scripture reading reminder program to be aware of individual time preferences among teens.
In addition to students being able to choose what time the texts are sent, several other recommendations for research were learned during the implementation and analysis of this program.
Control group. As mentioned earlier, accurate analysis of student reading trends would include a control group with which to compare reading data of students participating in the program with data of students not participating in the program.
Participating/not participating survey. This study did not investigate the reasons why students chose to participate. It is not known what benefit the students hoped to receive, other than the obvious increase in scripture reading. Why they choose to participate in the program and why they want to increase their scripture study would be an important area to address. In 58
addition, to further analyze student interest in a scripture reading reminder program, it is crucial to survey students who do not participate. Reasons students do not participate should be considered, and concerns could be potentially resolved thus increasing the numbers of students participating. It is most likely that the students who are not participating are the ones who need the program the most. Knowing why they do not wish to participate would be key to finding a program that would work best for them.
Program logistics. As discussed earlier, several students discovered their phones were blocked or blacklisted which prevented them from participating in the study. This problem was not known beforehand. Had the problem been anticipated, information regarding how to unblock the numbers from specific carriers, such as T-Mobile, could have been given to parents, thus increasing the number of students who could participate.
Several students also verbally discussed their frustration with not being able to find the Facebook page online. Although directions were clearly given on the consent form and demonstrated in each classroom, no written instructions were given to the students to take home with them and keep. The only written directions were on the consent form, which was returned to me, thus depriving the students of the information once the form was returned. This difficulty was not discovered until almost the end of the program, thus I was not able to rectify the problem early enough to benefit the students.
Length of the program. As discussed earlier, many extraneous circumstances impacted the implementation of the survey. Student teachers, fall break, end of term, football championships, and difficulty in getting the program started all limited the duration of the program. The data for the program should have been comparing at least the same number of weeks before and after the program, with a preference for the program to run at least 2-3 months. A longer program could have potentially shown an increase in scripture study over time, as the 59
messages had a gradual effect on students’ behavior, rather than an immediate one. Change can be difficult, and immediate change even more so. It is possible this program could have a more impressive impact if it were measuring more than just immediate change.
Focus groups. I was unable to meet with students after the program in focus groups. Although surveys provided much information, it would have been more informative to speak with students in an informal setting to ask them what type of program they might like to have and which parts of this program worked best for them. Since students would be considered stakeholders in this research, it would be advantageous to speak with them direct and get their opinions.
Post survey. Although the post survey provided a lot of information, it did not provide as much information as it could have. For instance, the question, “Would you recommend the seminary keep this program?” was answered positively by nearly every student. It is wonderful that the students enjoyed the program; however, the follow-up question of why they would keep the program was not asked. I believe this to be an important component of designing a program that works for the students.
In addition, the post surveys were given out during only one of their class periods. Therefore, if the student was absent on that day, although they participated in the program, their surveys were not filled out and evaluated. It is believed that at least a dozen surveys could have been collected had the students been given more than one opportunity to fill out a survey.
Teachers. The last area in which I would suggest changes be made in a scripture reading reminder program is in the education of the teachers. Although the wonderful teachers who took part in this program believed they understood and were on board with what to do, I discovered that all teachers did not understand their importance in reminding students to fill out calendars or 60
help with the program as much as they could. Future researchers should follow-up and ask specific questions during the program to be sure teachers are following the research protocol.
Conclusion
Although challenges and concerns with SMS technology and social media exist among teachers, parents, and educators, it appears current literature finds the benefits of these technologies to outweigh potential problems. I agree with Sharples (2003) who suggests that rather than seeing technology as disruptive devices, educators should seek to exploit the potential of the technologies students bring with them and find ways to put them into good use for the benefit of learning.
Although this particular scripture reading reminder program did not find statistically significant increases in reading among seminary students, it has proved itself to be a valuable pilot study in this area. Many lessons regarding student preference for texting, timing of the program in the school year, difficulties with SMS technologies and blacklisted phone carriers, parents’ desire for participation with their students, and the overall positive reaction this type of program received provides valuable insight for future research. 61
References
Baird, J. S. (2006). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 515-522.
Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1994) Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Innovative Learning Publications.
Common Sense Media. (2011, August 21). Hi-Tech Cheating: Cell Phones and Cheating in Schools: A National Poll. Retrieved from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/hi-tech-cheating
Dale, A., & Strauss, A. (2009). Don't forget to vote: Text message reminders as a mobilization tool. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 787-804. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00401.x
Dautrich, K., & Yalof, D. (2008). The future of the First Amendment: Digital media, civic education and free expression rights in the nations’ high schools. Cambridge, MA: University Press.
Facebook. (2011, December 5) Facebook Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
Ferdig, R. (2007). Editorial: Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 5-10.
Grinter, R.E., & Eldridge, M. A. (2003). Want2tlk? Everyday text messaging. In G. Cockton & P. Korhonen (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2003 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference, 441-448. New York: ACM Press.
Hardy, H., Kumar, V., Doros, G., Farmer, E., Drainoni, M., Rybin, D., & Skolnik, P. R. (2011). Randomized controlled trial of a personalized cellular phone reminder system to enhance adherence to antiretroviral therapy. AIDS Patient Care & Stds, 25(3), 153-161. doi:10.1089/apc.2010.0006
Harris Interactive. (2008). A generation unplugged – Research report. Retrieved from http://files.ctia.org/pdf/HI_TeenMobileStudy_ResearchReport.pdf62
Haug, S., Meyer, C., Schorr, G., Bauer, S., & John, U. (2009). Continuous individual support of smoking cessation using text messaging: A pilot experimental study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11(8), 915-923. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp084
Kasesniemi, E. L., & Rautiainen, P. (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kert, S. (2011). The use of SMS support in programming education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 10(2), 268-273.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Current uses of wireless and mobile learning – Landscape study on the use of mobile and wireless technologies for teaching and learning in the Post-16 sector. Joint Information Systems Committee-funded project. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Current%20Uses%20FINAL%202005.doc
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purmobile, K. (2009). Teens and mobile phones over the past five years: Pew Internet looks back. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/2009/14--Teens-and-Mobile-Phones-Data-Memo.aspx
Lim, T., Fadzi, M., & Mansor, N. (2011). Mobile learning via SMS at Open University Malaysia: Equitable, effective, and sustainable. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 122-137.
Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phone. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 515-525.
Martínez-Torres, M., Toral, S., Barrero, F., & Gallardo, S. (2007). Improving learning performance in laboratory instruction by means of SMS messaging. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 12, 409-422.63
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2009). Mobile technologies and learning. FutureLab, 4. Retrieved from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews/Literature-Review203
National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, Sex and Tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults. (2009, August 22). Retrieved from http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/pdf/sextech)summary.pdf
Nielsen Corporation. (2011). State of the Media: The Social Media Report Q3 2011. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/
Perron, N., Dao, M., Kossovsky, M. P., Miserez, V., Chuard, C., Calmy, A., & Gaspoz, J. (2010). Reduction of missed appointments at an urban primary care clinic: A randomized controlled study. BMC Family Practice, 11, 79-86. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-11-79
Pickett, A. D., & Thomas, C. (2006). Turn off that phone. American School Board Journal, 193(4), 40-44.
Puccio, J., Belzer, M., Olson, J., Martinez, M., Salata, C., Tucker, D., & Tanaka, D. (2006). The use of cell phone reminder calls for assisting HIV-infected adolescents and young adults to adhere to highly active antiretroviral therapy: a pilot study. AIDS Patient Care & Standards, 20(6), 438-444.
Riordan, B., & Traxler, J. (2003). Supporting computing students at risk using blended technologies. Proceedings of 4th Annual Conference. Galway, Ireland: LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Science, 174-175.
Sharples, M. (2003). Disruptive devices: Mobile technology for conversational learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 12(5/6), 504-520.
Site Analytics. (2011, December 5). Retrieved from http://siteanalytics.compete.com/facebook.com/64
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49, 376-385.
Survey: Teens’ cell phones indispensable (2008, September 15). CNET Tech News.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011). Using text-messaging in the secondary classroom. American Secondary Education, 39(2), 55-76.
Utah Census (2010). Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/city/Provo-Utah.html
Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Hartikainen, A., & Karkkainen, S. (2010). Blended learning with everyday technologies to activate students' collaborative learning. Science Education International, 21(4), 272-283. 65
Appendix A
Chart of Text Messages
Sent At
Contacts
Message
11/07/2012 08:44:pm MST
276
Thanks so much 4 your participation in the scripture reading reminder program! This is the last message. Hope you found yourself reading more! Stop to cancel
11/06/2012 09:00:pm MST
276
1Ne15:24 (The iron rod is)the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God & hold fast unto it, they would never perish.Hold tight! Stop to cancel
11/05/2012 09:00:pm MST
276
Alma31:5 The word(of God lead) the people to do that whch was just - yea, it had more powrful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword. Stop to cancel
11/04/2012 08:40:pm MST
276
Hel3:29 Yeah, we see that whosoever...may lay hold upon the word of God which is..powerful which shall divide asunder the snares of the devil. Stop to cancel
11/03/2012 09:00:pm MST
276
Ezra Taft Benson: The best way to obtain the blessing of the spirit is scripture study. Give God your best and his best will come back to you. Stop to cancel
11/02/2012 09:02:pm MST
276
Elder Bednar One of the best ways to draw near unto Him ...and become more like (Him) is to consistently study the holy scriptures. Stop to cancel
11/01/2012 08:58:pm MST
277
Going to the scriptures to learn what to do makes all the difference..We will find answers in the scriptures. (Pres. Eyring) Be sure to read! Stop to cancel
10/31/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
There is nothing sweeter than the word of God. Not even halloween candy. ;) Try reading a verse for every bite of candy you have tonight! Stop to cancel
10/30/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
Pres Hinckley I know with the demands of your studies there is little time to read anything else...Let the Lord speak for himself to you. Read! Stop to cancel66
10/29/2012 09:00:pm MST
278
Helaman 5:12 and Matthew 7:24-27. Can you find what they are both teaching? Hint: It's about a rock - and it's AWESOME! Stop to cancel
10/28/2012 08:30:pm MST
278
Elder Bednar: I do not know of a better way to always remember Him than to daily study the scriptures. Did you renew this covenant today? Stop to cancel
10/27/2012 09:00:pm MST
279
Pres Hunter:There is nothing more helpful than prayer 2 open our understanding of the scriptures. Try praying B4 U read tonight 4 understanding Stop to cancel
10/26/2012 09:00:pm MST
279
Elder Hales: We must see the scriptures for what they are: an instruction manual for becoming like our Savior. You can do this - you can read! Stop to cancel
10/25/2012 09:00:pm MST
280
Pres. Benson:When we put God first, all other things fall into their proper place or drop out of our lives. Put Him first tonight, and read. Stop to cancel
10/24/2012 09:00:pm MST
282
Try reading Mark 14 before taking the sacrament this week.See how much symbolism you can identify in the sacrament. What reminds us of His death? Stop to cancel
10/23/2012 09:00:pm MST
282
Pres.Hunter: Not only should we study each day, but there should B a regular time set aside when we can concentrate without interference. 9:00? Stop to cancel
10/22/2012 09:00:pm MST
283
Try reading Matt. 14:22-33. What does this have to do with our faith? When you find yourself sinking, dive into the scriptures for His help. Stop to cancel
10/21/2012 08:30:pm MST
283
Pres. Monson:Study (the scriptures) as though they were speaking to you, for such is the truth. Take time to read AND study tonight if you can. Stop to cancel
10/20/2012 09:00:pm MST
283
Elder Nelson: To feast means more than to taste..(it is)to savor. We savor the scriptures by studying them in a spirit of delightful discovery... Stop to cancel
10/19/2012 09:00:pm MST
284
Mark Chapters 5-8 teach us of Christ's power to heal, his power over the elements, satan, and 67
even death. Try reading them to identify His power. Stop to cancel
10/18/2012 09:00:pm MST
285
(Sheri Dew)Some of the clearest promptings I have ever received have come while being immersed in the scriptures.They R a conduit for revelation. Stop to cancel
10/17/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
Time for scrip. study requires a schedule that will B honored.(or) blessings that matter most will B at the mercy of things that matter least-RMN Stop to cancel
10/16/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
When we want to speak to God, we pray.And when we want Him to speak to us, we search the scriptures. (Elder Hales)Let Him speak to you tonight. Stop to cancel
10/15/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
Pres. Hinckley (Reading Scriptures) at first may seem tedious, but that will change into a wonderous experience with thoughts and words..divine. Stop to cancel
10/14/2012 08:30:pm MST
279
It is better to have a set amount of time to give scriptural study each day than to have a set amount of chapters to read. Howard W. Hunter Stop to cancel
10/13/2012 08:30:pm MST
279
When we read the scriptures we are hearing the voice of the Savior. He is not absent from our lives . -Cheryl Lant. Be sure to read tonight! Stop to cancel
10/12/2012 08:30:pm MST
279
When it seems that I am far far away...If I immerse myself in the scriptures the distance narrows and the spirituality returns.(Pres. Kimball) Stop to cancel
10/11/2012 08:30:pm MST
279
Thank you for signing up to receive scripture reading reminders. You will receive a daily message to encourage you to read. Stop to cancel68
Appendix B
Student Survey Student Seminary Program Number_________________
1. What year in school are you? Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Circle: Male/ Female
2. Did your parents participate in the program? (Circle)
1. NO 2. Yes Facebook 3. Yes Texts
3. Did you receive cell phone text messages? YES/NO (If “no,” skip to question 6
4. Did you read the cell phone text reminders?
(Circle the answer that best describes how often you read)
Always -----Most of the Time-----Some of the Time----- Rarely-----Never
5. What sentence best describes your reaction to the cell phone text reminders?
a. I loved receiving the messages! They helped me increase my scripture study frequency.
b. I liked receiving the messages. They kind-of helped me increase my scripture study.
c. I liked receiving the messages, but they did NOT help me increase my study.
d. I didn’t like receiving the messages, but I DID read more.
e. I didn’t like receiving the messages, and my scripture reading DID NOT increase.
f. Other: If none of the above apply, please write a sentence of your own, if you wish.
6. Did you participate via Facebook? YES/NO (if “no”, skip to question 9)
7. Did you read the Facebook posts? 69
Always -----Most of the Time-----Some of the Time----- Rarely-----Never
8. What sentence best describes your reaction to the Facebook Posts?
a. I loved receiving the messages! They helped me increase my scripture study frequency.
b. I liked receiving the messages. They kind-of helped me increase my scripture study.
c. I liked receiving the messages, but they did NOT help me increase my study.
d. I didn’t like receiving the messages, but I DID read more.
e. I didn’t like receiving the messages, and my scripture reading DID NOT increase.
f. Other: Please write a sentence of your own, if you wish.
9. If you could change anything about the program, what would it be?
10. Would you recommend the Seminary keep this program? YES/NO
11. Any additional comments or concerns regarding the program? (Feel free to use the back) 70
Appendix C
Calendars71
72
73
Appendix D
Letter of Explanation to Parents and Guardians
Dear Parent or Guardian of ___________________ Seminary Student,
My name is Wendy Bird, and I am a frequent substitute teacher at ___________High School Seminary. I am currently in the process of studying to receive my Master’s Degree, and am looking for help from your student to complete my master’s project. I have created a program to help increase scripture reading among seminary students. As we know, most teenagers need frequent reminders to help them make scripture study a daily habit. In conjunction with the faculty at ____________High School, we would like to help do just that.
The Scripture Reading Reminder Program is 6-weeks long, and consists of two parts: Cell phone text reminders and posts via Facebook. As a mother of teenagers myself, I know how much students rely on their phones, and how often they use their Facebook accounts. Current research indicates 80% of teenagers are cell phone users, of whom 90% use text messaging. Facebook is touted as the number one social networking site among teens. By utilizing these two outlets, we are using technology teens already use and love.
For our program, a text message from the seminary student’s teacher will be sent every day, the contents of which will be at the discretion of the teacher. The messages will be sent in a “mass text” format with all students receiving the same message. The teacher will not individualize the messages for the class or student. Messages will be limited to scripture reading motivation, and will not contain personal messages in any way from the teacher to the individual student. The text message will contain any or all of the following information: 1) a reminder to read their scriptures that day, 2) the scripture block assigned for their next class period, and 3) the scripture mastery scripture currently being studied.
In addition, students will be asked to sign up to receive posts on the ___________Seminary Facebook page. The content of the posts will contain any or all of the following: 1) The actual text of scripture passages assigned to students, 2) a motivational quote from church leaders encouraging them to read, 3) links to church-approved information that may help them understand difficult scriptural passages, 4) full text of Scripture Mastery verses and information to help them with memorization. As with the cell phone messages, this is a mass post, utilizing one-way communication from teacher to student. No student will receive any individualized communication.
If you and your student are comfortable signing up for this voluntary program, please sign the attached form. If you choose, you may also sign up to receive the same text and Facebook posts as your students. We highly encourage you as parents to participate in our program and receive the information along with your child. Please feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions or concerns regarding the program. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Wendy Bird
(435) 640-6146 Cell
(801) 801-356-1149 Home74
Appendix E
Seminary Scripture Reading Reminder Program Consent Form
I , _(please print) ____________________ give my permission for my student, _________________________________________________ to participate in the Seminary Scripture Reading Reminder Program at ______________ High School. I understand at the completion of the 6-week program, my student will fill out a small anonymous survey. If he/she is interested, I give my student permission to participate in an interview with the researcher regarding the program.
_____________________________________ Student’s cell phone number
______________________________________ Parent’s Signature
Parent Participation
“Participation” means you will receive cell phone text messages and be responsible for signing up for posts on the ___________High Seminary Facebook page. There will be a survey for parents at the end of the program, which is not required for participation, but would be helpful to the researcher if you are willing. It will be sent to you via email. No other time or effort is required for parent participation.
Yes, I would like to participate with my student in the Scripture Reading Reminder program. Please send me the cell phone messages. I will go to the _____________Seminary Facebook page, and sign up posts.
_____________________ Parent(s) cell phone number (For text messages)
_____________________ Parent(s ) Email (For survey at the end of the program.)
No, I would not like to participate with my student in the Scripture Reading Reminder program. If at any time during the duration of the program I wish to receive the cell phone text messages, I can contact my student’s seminary teacher to be included.75
Appendix F
INFORMED CONSENT
Using SMS Technology and Social Media to Increase Scripture Reading among Teens Enrolled in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Seminary Education Program.
Seminary Scripture Reading Motivation Program
Principal Investigator
Wendy Bird
2545 N. 400 E. Provo, UT 84604
(435) 640-6146
Wendy@GoneScrappin.com
Background:
You are being invited to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether social media and/or texting motivational reminders to students regarding scripture reading will result in increased scripture reading among seminary students.
Study Procedure:
For most students, your expected time commitment for this study is no more than 1hour of seminary classroom time, spread out over the course of 6 weeks. A small handful of students may be asked to participate in a group interview regarding the program which would require approximately one more hour of the students’ time .
You will be asked to sign up for Facebook posts outside of your seminary classroom. It is expected that you will most likely do this at your own home. You will also be asked to provide your cell phone number so you can be contacted via text messaging. For 6 weeks you will receive text messages and/or Facebook posts regarding scripture reading. You will keep a log of how many minutes you read your scriptures for every day during the 6 week period. At the end of the 6 weeks, you will fill out a survey in your seminary class about your experience with the program. You may leave the survey blank if you choose, and participation in the program is completely voluntary. This program is not part of your academic grade in seminary. 76
Risks:
The risks of this study are minimal. These risks are similar to those you experience when disclosing work-related information to others. The topics in the survey may upset some respondents. You may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate your involvement in the program at any time if you choose.
August 28, 2012
Page 1 of 3
INFORMED CONSENT
Using SMS Technology and Social Media to Increase Scripture Reading among Teens Enrolled in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Seminary Education Program.
Benefits:
There will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study. However, we hope that by being contacted through the program, your scripture reading increases, you come more prepared to your seminary class, and you find Scripture Mastery scriptures easier to remember.
Confidentiality:
Please do not write any identifying information on your questionnaire or calendars. Your responses will be anonymous. HOWEVER, if you are willing to be identified and would like to participate in a short interview regarding the program, there will be a space on the questionnaire for you to include your contact information. This is completely voluntary, and not necessary for your participation in the program.
Every effort will be made by the researcher to preserve your confidentiality including the following:
Assigning code numbers for participants that will be used on all researcher notes and documents. Notes, interview transcriptions, and transcribed notes and any other identifying participant information will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the researcher. When no longer necessary for research, all materials will be destroyed. The researcher and the members of the researcher’s committee will review the researcher’s collected data. Information from this research will be used solely for the purpose of this study. Any final publication will contain the names of the public figures that have consented to participate in this study; all other participants involved in this study will not be identified and their anonymity will be maintained.
Person to Contact:
Should you have any questions about the research or any related matters, please contact the researcher, Wendy Bird, at Wendy@gonescrappin.com, or via phone at (435) 640-6146.77
Institutional Review Board:
If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, or if problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the Investigator, please contact the Institutional Review Board Office at (801) 863-8156.
August 28, 2012
Page 2 of 3
INFORMED CONSENT
Using SMS Technology and Social Media to Increase Scripture Reading among Teens Enrolled in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Seminary Education Program.
Voluntary Participation:
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part in this study. If you do decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take part in this study, you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. You are free to not answer any question or questions you choose. This will not affect the relationship you have with the researcher.
Unforseeable Risks:
There may be risks that are not anticipated. However every effort will be made to minimize any risks.
Costs to Subject:
There are no costs to you for your participation in this study.
Compensation:
There is no monetary compensation to you for your participation in this study.
Consent:
By signing this consent form, I confirm that I have read and understood the information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I will be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.
Signature________________________________________________________ Date_________78
I understand that by listing my cell phone number below, I agree to receive cell phone text reminders regarding scripture reading.
I understand that I should go to the ______________ High School Seminary Facebook page and sign up to receive posts regarding scripture reading. I understand I will need to do this on my own home computer, as a computer at the school will not be available for my use.
____________________________________________ Student’s Cell Phone Number
____________________________________________________Student’s Name
___________________________________________________ Student’s Signature
August 28, 2012
Page 3 of 379
Appendix G
Teacher Survey
1. Was it difficult to remember to have the students fill out the calendars?
2. How diligent were you in reminding them?
3. What problems did you see with the program?
4. Did you see any positive results with kids who did the program?
5. Were there any comments you herd or overheard the kids make
(positive or negative) regarding the program?
6. Anything else you observed or can think of – including any way you can think
to improve the program?80
Appendix H
Parent Survey (Via Email)
1. Did you receive text messages? YES/NO
If yes, please rate your overall experience with receiving text messages as part of the seminary scripture reminder program.
Extremely Negative 1___2___3____4____5___6___7 Extremely Positive
2. Did you receive Facebook messages? YES/NO
If yes, please rate your overall experience with receiving Facebook messages as part of the seminary scripture reminder program.
Extremely Negative 1___2____3____4___5___6___7 Extremely Positive
3. Please rate your impression of your students’ overall experience with the program.
Extremely Negative 1___2____3___4____5___6___7 Extremely Positive
4. Do you feel the program helped the students increase their scripture study frequency?
Had No Effect 1____2____3____4____5____6___7 Was Very Helpful
5. What did you like about the program?
6. What didn’t you like about the program? What would you change?
7. Please leave any other comments or suggestions you feel would be helpful in adjusting the program in any way.
THANK YOU81
Appendix I
Student Responses to Open-Ended Survey Questions
#
Misc. Suggestions and Observations
92
that when you text it to me make sure that the words that you are trying to say is on the same text message.
94
nothing except the "stop to cancel" at the end of the text should be removed.
247
I enjoyed having the calendars because it was something that kept me reading.
248
get the students more involved with pictures or activities.
253
maybe some scripture mastery and last general conference talk quotes.
399
Maybe provide a different way of keeping track of scripture study habits, like a chart that can be inserted in scriptures.
428
more facebook things, less/shorter texts.
more reminders in seminary to fill out the calendar.
445
Make the texts/FB reminders more appealing
492
Some of the texts were a little strange i.e. the one about the rock
17
It helps because you check those things a lot.
50
It would get my hopes up (I thought it was a text from a friend.)
259
not all kids have internet/texting, so if there could be more reminders that all the kids could read/see, there would be more peer pressure too!
238
I think this program could be beneficial, BUT for certain people that don't regularly read it could further turn them away. Could be annoying.
504
Better candy
Suggestions Regarding Time Texts are Sent
None
I loved it. Maybe if the texts were sent in the morning, though, it would have been more helpful to keep me focused on making time for it sometime that day. By 9pm I'm super busy without a lot of time.
441
I think it's a great program, and it probably helped other students, but by the time I usually got them, I was going to sleep.
9
What time the texts come
60
Probably nothing, I would have liked to receive the texts earlier rather than at night because at night I'm too lazy and tired to read.
64
Send the text messages later when I will be in a position to read. I read around 10:30 pm.
183
Receive the text earlier than 8
222
sending the reminders a little bit earlier.
226
have the texts sent earlier, they were always sent at 9:00 and I 82
didn't like that.
233
Remind us earlier. If late, we get too tired to read and ignore it sometimes.
254
I wish it would come at a different array of times. A text at 7:00 and another at 9:00
274
Earlier messages, I found that because the texts came so late, I was busy and it was hard to find the time.
294
Have texts be in the morning. I know it would be less likely to influence increased reading, but it would be more influential for a better day I feel like.
349
I don't think I would change much, maybe do the texts a little earlier, like 5 or 7pm instead of 8 or 9.
398
The time that we get the text we would always get them really late and by then I would not have the time to read.
400
I received the text messages while I was at volleyball practice… so I often forgot when I got home.
410
Maybe the time the texts were sent. Other than that, I enjoyed

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The author retains all copyright ownership. The right to download or print any of the pages of these theses is granted by the copyright owner only for personal or classroom use. The author retains all proprietary rights, including copyright ownership. Any reproduction or editing by any means mechanical or electronic without the express written permission of the copyright owner is strictly prohibited.

Utah Valley University
Using SMS Technology and Social Media to
Increase Scripture Study among Teens Enrolled in the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’
Seminary Education Program
A project submitted in partial satisfaction
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Education
In
Curriculum and Instruction
by
Wendy W. Bird
April 20132
Utah Valley University
Graduate Committee Approval
Of a project submitted by
Wendy W. Bird
This project has been read by each member of the following graduate
committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.
_______________ ________________________________
Date Dr. Raquel Cook
_______________ ________________________________
Date Dr. Mary Sowder3
Dedication and Acknowledgements
This work is dedicated to the millions of students throughout the world who have sacrificed to take seminary.
Acknowledgements: To Dr. Raquel Cook whose tireless editing, enthusiasm, and encouragement for this project was much appreciated. (Did I use my commas correctly according to APA in that last sentence?) I couldn’t have asked for a better Chair! To Dorian Kinder, who made my whole Master’s experience especially fun. Thank you for your friendship and willingness to always be my project partner. To LeGrand Laing, my friend and mentor, who was the first person in CES to take a chance on me – and who continues to believe in me. Thank you. To Sherrie Anthony who inspired me to pursue my Master’s degree, and whose friendship and experience is invaluable. Thanks also to Matthew P. Wilcox whose encouragement and help with statistics was a life saver. Last, but certainly not least, I wish to acknowledge my wonderful family for their unconditional love and support. So glad we get to go through life - and eternity - together! I love you!4
Abstract
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) educates its youth through a program of instruction called seminary. All seminary students are encouraged to make daily scripture study a part of their lives, though many students struggle to make this reading a habit. Given the popularity of social media such as Facebook, and the use of SMS technology for texting among teens, research was done to see if using such methods to encourage and remind students to read would be successful in increasing their scripture study. Although results of this study proved statistically insignificant, much was learned regarding students, their preferences, and their desire for a program such as this. Students clearly prefer texting reminders over Facebook, read the reminders they are sent, and would recommend a program such as this one to be implemented in their seminary programs. 5
Contents
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................7
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................8
Research Problem ........................................................................................................... 9
Research Purpose ............................................................................................................ 9
Research Questions......................................................................................................... 9
Personal Significance.................................................................................................... 10
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2 Literature Review..............................................................................................14
Blended Learning.......................................................................................................... 14
Teens and SMS Technology for Texting...................................................................... 15
SMS and Education....................................................................................................... 19
Social Media ................................................................................................................. 23
Summary....................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 3 Methodology .....................................................................................................26
Research Design............................................................................................................ 26
Participants................................................................................................................... 27
Duration ........................................................................................................................ 30
Research Perspective .................................................................................................... 31
Data Gathering and Instrumentation............................................................................. 32
Chapter 4 Results ...............................................................................................................36 6
Texting vs. Facebook.................................................................................................... 36
Student Reporting ......................................................................................................... 37
Student Survey Responses ............................................................................................ 40
Chapter 5 Analysis.............................................................................................................50
Implementation Challenges .......................................................................................... 52
Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 56
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 57
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 60
References.........................................................................................................................61
Appendix A........................................................................................................................65
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................68
Appendix C ........................................................................................................................70
Appendix D........................................................................................................................73
Appendix E ........................................................................................................................74
Appendix F.........................................................................................................................75
Appendix G........................................................................................................................79
Appendix H........................................................................................................................80
Appendix I .........................................................................................................................81
Appendix J .........................................................................................................................87
Appendix K........................................................................................................................89 7
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Graph showing gender and grade level participation in raw numbers…...…………..30
2 Research question analysis chart……………………………………………………..35
3 Graph showing how students and parents participated in the scripture reading reminder program. ………………………………………………………………………………..37
4 Chart showing frequency (how many days read) percentages of student scripture reading from actual numbers and from self-reported numbers………………......……..38
5 Duration (how many minutes read per day) percentages of student scripture reading from actual numbers and self-reported numbers…………………………...………….. 39
6 Graph showing how often students reported reading the text reminders………….…40
7 Graph showing how often students self-reported reading the Facebook posts………41
8 Graph showing students’ perceived text messaging effectiveness in raw numbers, not percentages……………………………………………………………………………...42
9 Graph showing responses from student survey regarding how students would change
the program. Answers are in raw numbers, not percentages…………………………. 42
10 Graph showing responses from student survey regarding how students would change the program. Answers are in raw numbers, not percentages…………………………..45
11 Graph showing the parents experience with texting, and their perceived view of the program’s effectiveness with their child………………………………………………..47
12 Graph showing the parents self-reported increase in their own scripture study and the perceived effectiveness of the program with their child …………………………….…48
13 Table showing responses to open-ended questions on parent survey………………498
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) educates its youth through a program of instruction called seminary. This instruction takes place either as “release time” from school, where students meet in a building off school grounds for the duration of a class period, or during an early morning instructional program where students meet with seminary teachers before school. The purpose of seminary is to educate teens about the teachings and doctrines of the LDS Church. In order to fully understand the teachings and doctrines, the students have a responsibility to study such teachings as found in the LDS scriptural canon.
All seminary students are encouraged to make daily scripture study a part of their lives. Seminary students receive a grade similar to an academic grade for the course based on class participation, daily scripture study, and knowledge of selected scripture passages known as “scripture mastery.” The grades they receive in seminary to do not appear on their school transcripts.
There is currently no program in place to remind seminary students to read their scriptures outside of the classroom. Despite encouragement from seminary teachers to make scripture study a daily habit, a large number of seminary students are not reading their scriptures daily and do not keep up with the assigned readings. In essence, the burden of scripture reading achievement relies on students’ self-motivation. Although there are no current statistics available from the LDS church to support this claim, I have observed over the course of 5 years of teaching within 25 different high schools that most students do not come prepared to class and do not read their scriptures on a daily basis. 9
With current cellular and wireless technologies that enable nearly 80% of seminary students to be contacted individually throughout the day (Nielsen, 2011) it is logical to assume the combination of such technology with scripture reading reminders, as well as reminders through Facebook, the most favored social media site among teens, would produce an increase in scripture reading among seminary students. This paper will explore whether this assumption is correct.
Research Problem
Despite encouragement to make scripture study a daily habit, most seminary students are not reading their scriptures daily and do not keep up with the assigned readings.
Research Purpose
This study explored the effects of SMS technology and social media contact outside of seminary classes on students’ daily scripture reading.
Research Questions
This exploration sought to answer the following questions:
1. Does receiving daily text message reminders increase how often seminary students read their scriptures? (Can be from any book of scripture they choose.)
2. Does receiving daily text message reminders increase the number of minutes seminary students read their scriptures?
3. Does receiving reminders via Facebook post increase scripture reading among seminary students?
4. Did the program increase scripture reading, and if so, what elements of the scripture reading reminder program work best toward achieving the goal of increased daily scripture reading? 10
Personal Significance
During the past 5 years, I have taught seminary throughout Utah County in over 25 different schools. Because I do not hold a permanent teaching position at any one school, I have had the unique opportunity to teach approximately 38,000 different students over the course of these 5 years. (By contrast, a permanent seminary teacher would have only taught 2,000 different students within this same time period.) There is great socio-economic disparity among these students, yet all are learning the same church-wide seminary curriculum. At nearly every school I have found the majority of students anxious to learn, willing to participate, and wanting a good experience. I have also found, however, that the majority of students do not keep up with assigned readings from their permanent seminary teachers, and struggle to read their scriptures daily. I have never encountered a teacher in any seminary program that has not had this problem as well.
In addition to having been the teacher of thousands of seminary students, I am also the mother of four teenage daughters. I know from experience how often teens use their cell phones for texting. Teens do not ignore text messages and struggle to even delay looking at their phones when they know they have been sent a message. Teens definitely exhibit a sense of urgency in reading and responding to their texts. Since teens carry with them the technology to be reached and reminded through text messages, and given the fact that they struggle to ignore these messages, I believe this technology can be used to help remind teens to read their scriptures daily.
I am also keenly aware of the time teens spend on Facebook (Facebook, 2011). This social media is the lifeline for many teens, including my own, who use Facebook for 11
more than just connecting with friends. They use it to form social groups, rally peers for voting purposes, disperse information for clubs and social events, and even post requests for help and advice among fellow Facebook users. Ignoring teens’ use of Facebook would be ignoring a major component of their social lives.
In creating this research project, I believed the introduction of a reminder program which utilized Facebook and/or text messaging would help students increase their personal scripture study.
Definition of Terms
Many terms specific to the field of seminary education will be used throughout this paper; therefore, the following definitions will assist the reader in comprehension of the terms discussed.
LDS (Latter-day Saint) or Mormon: Belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Seminary: Religious instruction for teens during their school day which focuses on the doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church.
Seminary Students: Refers to teenagers aged 14-18 who have parental permission to leave school grounds to attend seminary. Students may or may not be members of the LDS church; however, it is rare to have students attend seminary who are not members.
Seminary Teachers: For the purpose of this study, the term “seminary teachers” refers only to full-time teachers employed by the LDS church’s education system. Although the church’s seminary program includes part-time early morning teachers throughout the world, this study will only be working with teachers who teach seminary full-time during the day. 12
Scriptures: In addition to commonly accepted Christian scriptures such as the Old and New Testaments in the King James version of the Bible, “scriptures” in this paper will also refer to LDS-specific books of scripture known as the LDS canon: The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Students may read from any of the above books to meet the criteria for scripture reading.
Daily Reading: Any scripture passage a student wishes to read from any scripture.
Scripture Block: A specific set of scripture chapters and verses studied together. They may or may not be consecutive chapters or verses, but they represent a grouping to be studied together. For their assigned readings, seminary students are asked to read a particular scripture block before attending their next class so they are familiar with the scriptures they will be discussing that day.
Scripture Mastery: Selected scripture verses in the area of study (such as Old Testament or New Testament) which contain key points of church doctrine for students to know and understand. Students are encouraged to memorize scripture mastery verses and are required to do so in order to receive a high grade in their seminary class.
Release Time: This term is used by high schools or junior high schools to describe the class period where students are “released” from school to attend seminary classes. On the students’ official school transcript, “seminary” is not listed, but “release time” is. Students usually walk to the seminary building which is located off school grounds, but in close proximity to the school. Release time is only approved for students if they attend seminary class regularly. If they do not attend regularly, the high school or junior high school is notified of their absences and their release time privileges are revoked. They are then required to be at school. 13
Prophets and Apostles: Believed to be men called of God to preach his gospel on Earth today, as were the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus to preach the gospel during his earthly ministry.
Social Media: Websites dedicated to social interaction by their members. Examples of social media websites are Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace.
SMS Technology: Short Messaging Service is the technology used for texting. Although SMS technology has other uses, for the purpose of this study only SMS technology used with cell phone texting will be examined. 14
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Schools are challenged today by students who are described as the “net generation” and “digital natives,” referring to the notion that they have lived their whole lives surrounded by a variety of technologies (Tapscott, 2009). Students today are the “first generation in history that can text, tweet and blog to the whole world” (Dautrich& Yalof, 2008). This is a challenge because these youth are swiftly moving within the information society with all the possibilities of wireless networking and social software, while “schools are only slowly finding the advantages of these everyday technologies in authentic teaching and learning” (Vesisenaho, Valtonen, Kukkonen, Havu-Nuutinen, Hartikainen, & Karkkainen, 2010).
Sharples (2003) suggests that rather than seeing them as disruptive devices, educators should seek to exploit the potential of the technologies students bring with them and find ways to put them into good use for the benefit of learning. In essence, teachers should change their mindset from viewing students’ love of technology in a negative light, and turn instead to looking for ways to take advantage of potential blended learning opportunities.
Blended Learning
A blended approach to enable learning with mobile technologies such as SMS and social media “is necessary as successful and engaging activities draw on a number of different theories and practices” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2009). A trend exists among educators who believe learning will move more and more outside of the classroom and into the learner’s environments, both real and virtual. “There is considerable interest in exploiting the almost universal appeal and abundance of these 15
technologies for their [students’] educational use” (Naismith et al, 2009). Thus, teachers are beginning to recognize and embrace their students’ immersion in technology as a valuable asset to enhance classroom instruction and improve students’ learning performance.
In one study, blended learning technologies were used to support at-risk computing students at the University of Wolverhampton (Riordan & Traxler, 2003). The objectives of this project were to develop, deliver, and evaluate blending learning that exploited a number of different technologies in order to identify which was most successful. Results of the study showed students prefer receiving notices and communication via SMS rather than e-mail or noticeboards, and used SMS text messaging promptly and effectively.
Final exam results for the group of students receiving SMS interventions and notices were slightly higher than for non-SMS groups. Although the results were not statistically significant the students provided considerable positive feedback, with the majority acknowledging the SMS contact to be worthwhile. Students also claimed SMS interventions to be their preferred technology and identified them as being successful if they were short, personalized, and focused (Riordan &Traxler, 2003).
Teens and SMS Technology for Texting
To understand why the use of SMS technology could also provide an opportunity for blended learning for teens, it is important to understand the extent to which teens rely on their phones. To teens, cell phones are seen as a convenient source of independence, safety, and privacy (Kasesniemi & Rautiainen, 2002). Students like texting because it is fast and easy to use and because the “anytime anywhere aspects of the phones allows them to multitask” (Lu, 2008, p. 27). Some adolescents have described leaving home 16
without a cell phone as feeling “almost like leaving home without their clothes on” (Survey: Teen’s, 2008). Another significant finding in 2008 by Harris Interactive identified that “teens believe mobile phones are an integral part of their identities and that their popularity and status among peers is tied to their phones” (Harris Interactive, 2008). The Harris study reported that 45% of teens believe that having a cell phone is a “key to their social life,” and 57% believe it “improves the quality of their life” (p. 12).
The Nielsen Media Usage report issued in June 2011 states that approximately 80% of teens own cell phones and acknowledges that “teens today are the most digitally connected generation we have ever seen and continue the upward trend of cell phone ownership and usage” (Nielsen, 2011, p. 3). The Harris Study of over 2,000 teenagers corroborates the findings in the Nielsen report by also stating 80% of American teens own a cell phone (Harris Interactive, 2008). The Pew Study done in 2009 indicates a slightly smaller percentage of cell phone ownership among teens, stating only 75% of 12-17 year-olds own a cell phone, up from 45% in 2004 (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purmobile, 2009). Though percentages vary slightly by study, it is well established that the majority of teens own cell phones.
Of the students who have a cell phone, 90% use them for texting purposes (Nielsen, 2011). “Those phones have become indispensable tools in teen communication patterns, with fully 72% of all teens -- or 88% of teen cell phone users -- being text-messagers” (Lenhart et al, 2009). The Pew study indicates this is a sharp rise from the 51% of teens who were engaged in text messaging in 2006. Currently, more than half of teens are involved in text messaging on a daily basis (Lenhart et al., 2009), and more than 42% of teens could text blindfolded (Harris Interactive, 2008). 17
Teens between the ages of 13-17 represent the demographic with the highest number of mobile texts sent per month. The Nielsen report (2011) identified each teen in this age group sending an average of 3,364 texts per month. The literature clearly shows a high percentage of cell phone usage among teens and documents teens’ substantial use of SMS technology. To ignore teens’ usage of this technology is to ignore an integral part of their lives.
Benefits of SMS technology. Using SMS technology to enhance classroom instruction is a logical step. As is documented above, nearly all students have access to the technology, they are extremely well versed in its use thereby eliminating training and expenditure, and it provides a medium to receive instructional or motivational contact anytime and anywhere. Adolescents indicate text messaging is quicker, cheaper, and in a number of ways more convenient than oral-based uses of their phones (Grinter & Eldridge, 2003). Grinter and Eldridge reported 90% of text messages were sent to friends, thus recognizing teens to be highly socially motivated to use and carry their cell phones at all times. In addition, since texts come in written form, students must read them to receive the message, increasing their likelihood of remembering the text’s message. This statement is based on findings that indicate memory which comes from a visual or spatial pattern is the most likely to remain, whereas hearing is the least likely and least effective way to establish memory (Caine & Caine, 1994).
Concerns with SMS technology. Educators and teachers have struggled with embracing SMS technology because of concerns with cheating and bullying (Thomas& Orthober, 2011). Cheating concerns do appear to be supported by research findings (Common Sense Media, 2011; Lenhart et al., 2009), which identify two-thirds of students questioned admitting either they or their classmates use their mobile phones to cheat. 18
In addition to cheating, concerns about bullying via cell phone are supported by research. Cyberbullying is defined as “an intentionally aggressive act or behavior perpetrated by one individual or group on another person over a period of time using electronic forms of contact” (Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Shanette & Tippett, 2008). A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 26% of teens have been harassed through their mobile phone either by calls or text messages (Lenhart et al., 2009). Thus, teens using cell phones to bully their peers also appears to be a legitimate concern.
Parents and teachers are justifiably concerned with the inappropriate use of SMS technology when it comes to their students. However, mobile phones are not the cause of these problems; they are merely the most current vehicles in which students act out their poor behavior (National, 2009). In 1980, before mobile phones, 75% of students reported cheating in school (Baird, 2006). Twenty-five years later, approximately 74% of students still report cheating in school (Pickett & Thomas, 2006). These statistics prove the introduction of mobile technology has not caused or even increased students’ cheating behavior.
Like cheating, bullying predates the introduction of mobile technology (Pickett & Thomas, 2006). Cell phones are not the cause of such behavior, and banning them within the educational context because of the aforementioned concerns is not the solution to the problem. These problems existed before mobile technology, and will continue even if mobile technology is banned. Using cell phones to cheat and bully is merely the newest way to exhibit old behavior. 19
SMS and Education
Despite the concerns that arise when discussing the use of SMS technology in education (Thomas & Orthober, 2011), current literature shows beneficial outcomes that outweigh such concerns. In a study conducted in 2010 among Turkish University students, SMS technology was found to significantly increase posttest scores (Kert, 2011). Students were randomly separated into two equal groups: a control group who did not receive any SMS texts, and an experimental group who received 27 text messages over the course of their 7 week study. The text messages were used to enhance the learning taking place in the classroom, being described by the researchers as creating a “mixed learning environment” (Kert, 2011).
It is of interest to note that the students in the control group were given the same information as the experimental group in written form towards the end of the course. Therefore, both groups had all information available to them, but the SMS system of delivery was much more effective. In addition to the significant findings of positively increasing test scores, it was the researchers’ conclusion that wireless mobile technologies should be used to enhance learning because of their vast popularity, flexible characteristics, and ease of use (Kert, 2011).
The findings of the Turkish University study support similar findings of other research groups. The spring of 2011 marked the sixth consecutive semester of an SMS initiative at the Open University of Malaysia (Lim, Fadzi, & Mansor, 2011). This initiative was constructed to enhance blended learning technologies among undergraduate students. SMS technology was instrumental in five particular areas: administrative support, academic support, learner motivation enhancement, learner self-management development, and learning activities coordination. Learners noted in particular the 20
success of the program in reminding them regarding session dates and registration deadlines, receiving texts with important course content and information that helped them manage their studies better, and receiving motivational messages with short tips and techniques to help during challenging coursework assignments (Lim, Fadzi, & Mansor, 2011). As the title of their results indicates, researchers at the Open University of Malaysia found SMS technology equitable, effective, and sustainable. Given the fact that the school has continued the use of their SMS program for over six semesters demonstrates their belief in the study’s results.
While the study at the Open University of Malaysia did not attribute SMS technology with learning improvement (Lim, Fadzi & Mansor, 2011), research conducted at the University of Seville in 2006 did identify the use of SMS technology with helping university students to produce a significant improvement in their learning performance (Martinez-Torres, Toral, Barrero & Gallardo, 2007). The study was conducted using control and experimental lab instruction practices. Results indicated the SMS-based lab instruction had better features for learning performances than did the traditional labs. This study identified “motivation” as the most successful component of SMS technology, and corroborates a study done by The Open University United Kingdom which found mobile devices and SMS technology to be especially suited to and successful in motivating and alerting students (Kukulska-Hume, 2005).
Motivation and organization were also found to be key factors in a study of high school students conducted in 2008 (Thomas & Orthober, 2011). In this study, students were sent text messages reminding them of assignments, dates, and/or test material. Students’ responses showed that the convenience of the reminders they received were extremely helpful in ensuring that they came to class prepared and were enormously 21
valuable in contributing to their overall success in the course (Thomas & Orthober, 2011). The teachers in this study who sent the text messages felt texting was “extremely beneficial.” They found it helped students remember assignments and thus ensured that students were better prepared for class (Thomas & Orthober, 2011).
More SMS Uses
The benefits of SMS technology to motivate, organize, and improve learning performance among students are well documented. In addition to success in the educational field, however, SMS technology has proven effective in helping patients adhere to their complicated medical regimens (Puccio, Belzer, Olson, Martinez, Salata, Tucker, & Tanaka, 2006; Hardy, Kumar, Doros, Farmer, Drainoni, Rybin, & Skolnik, 2011), mobilizing people to vote (Dale & Strauss, 2009), encouraging and motivating participants in smoking cessation programs (Haug, Meyer, Schorr, Bauer, & John, 2009), and helping patients to keep medical appointments (Perron, Dao, Kossovsky, Miserez, Chuard, Calmy, & Gaspoz, 2010). A few of these programs will be discussed further.
SMS technology used in medical offices. As is stated by researchers of a study using a personalized cellular phone reminder system, “Adherence to antiretroviral therapy represents one of the strongest predictors of progression to AIDS, yet it is difficult for most patients to sustain high levels of adherence” (Hardy et al., 2011, p.154). Select patients were given cell phones on which they received daily text messaging reminders to take their medicine. Over a six-week trial period, researchers noted that patients’ who received text message reminders had a “significant result” and showed “robust differences” in their adherence to their medication regimen when compared to patients who did not receive text message reminders (p. 56). It is also of interest to note 22
that most patients reported a high satisfaction rate with the messages, and desired continuation of the reminder program.
SMS technology was also part of a three-month program to reduce missed appointments at a Primary Care Clinic in Switzerland (Perron et al., 2010). In 2007, the clinic reported a 22% missed appointment rate. To decrease this number, a program to remind patients of their upcoming appointments was put into place. It included phone calls, a text message or a postal note. Patients were randomly selected into either the control group (1,071) or the intervention group (1,052). The intervention significantly reduced the rate of missed appointment to 7.8% among specific consultation areas: General and Smoking Cessation. Although SMS technology was not the only factor in reducing the missed appointments, it was an integral part of the overall plan and contributed to its success.
SMS technology used as a mobilization tool. Whereas SMS technology in the medical field was used to remind patients of appointments and medical regimens to help patients fulfill previously made commitments, SMS technology also has been used to motivate the public to action.
A national field experiment during the 2006 election found text messaging had “a strong positive and statistically significant effect” in mobilizing voters (Dale & Strauss, 2009). Results showed a 4.1% increase in voter turnout nationwide, and an 11% increase in Utah. Researchers of this experiment identified several reasons text messaging was so effective. They noted that text messages are noticeable because mobile phones are still relatively uncluttered by unwanted “spam” messages, the nature of the display makes it difficult to ignore an incoming text message on most phones, and regular mobile users will be unlikely to miss the text message as they use their phones throughout the day. 23
Since the voters themselves signed up to receive the text messages, researchers concluded the messages had an even greater effect because voters already believed the messages to be important.
Text messages sent to voters varied in content by appealing to civic duty, claiming a close election where every vote counted, and informing the recipients of the closest voting location. Results showed it was not the message of the text which produced significant voter improvement, but rather the nature of the message via text, and the timing of the text which was sent within a few days of the election and on Election Day itself.
Social Media
Although SMS technology is widely used and has been proven successful in mobilizing, organizing, and motivating, it is not the only technology with a strong influence upon today’s teens. While teens love their phones, they also love social media. In order to create the most comprehensive program to motivate teens, then, both SMS technology and social media appear to be important components.
Teens and Facebook use. Net generation students are quite familiar with social software, which is defined as Internet software that “supports group interaction” (Vesienhaho et al, 2010). It has been documented that 80% off all Internet users visit social media sites, which would include 80% of all teens (Nielsen, 2011). The most popular social media site among teens is Facebook. According to current statistics provided by Facebook itself, the site documents over 800 million active users. Worldwide, one in every 13 people has a Facebook account with approximately 400 million users logging into their account every day (Facebook, 2011). The accessibility of Facebook through mobile technology, such as cell phones, is equally impressive. 24
According to self-reported statistics, more than 350 million active users currently access Facebook through their mobile devices. In addition to stationary computers, Nielsen reports 42% of teens access Facebook daily through their cell phones (Nielsen, 2011).
When specifically analyzing teen usage, Facebook stands as the most popular social media site in the world, reporting 159 million unique teen visitors per month. The next most popular sites of Twitter and MySpace only report 37 million and 24 million unique teen visitors per month respectively (Site Analytics, 2011).
Teachers and educators are beginning to explore the possibilities of the social media web phenomenon to increase and enhance classroom learning activities. From a blended learning point of view, social software provides interesting opportunities to support learning. Benefits of using Facebook include its popularity among teens, the ability teens have to already use the program, the ease of updating and posting for teachers, and the economic benefit of not having to purchase or install specific software (Ferdig, 2007).
Summary
Social media like Facebook and SMS technology are integrated within a majority of teens’ lives. This study sought to blend learning opportunities which combine such technology with traditional classroom instruction.
Although current literature does not contain specific information regarding SMS technology and social media related to religious education, the review of current educational and other varied uses of such technology to motivate, organize, and inform is substantial. With social media and SMS technology becoming increasingly popular among teens, it stood to reason that embracing and exploiting such technology was a positive direction to pursue. 25
In addition, there does not appear to be any research, religious or otherwise, which studies the implementation of a social media and SMS combined program. Research is restricted to one or the other. This study sought to break new ground in discovering results from a combined program. 26
Chapter 3
Methodology
This study explored the effects of SMS technology and social media contact outside of seminary classes on students’ daily scripture reading. This combination of technology was analyzed to determine which method was most preferred by students, and whether or not its implementation increased scripture study frequency and/or duration of scripture reading. In addition, I gathered feedback from participating students and teachers to analyze which factors, if any, were most effective in increasing daily scripture study.
Research Design
The specific scripture reading reminder program which was implemented, hereafter referred to as “the program,” consisted of seminary students receiving a daily mass distributed text, and a daily Facebook post. It is important to note that for the safety of the students and teachers, no personal or direct communication between students and teachers was ever utilized during this program. Text messages were sent via a mass texting website which does not allow students to respond. As a reference, many banks utilize this type of SMS communication to alert customers of low bank balances or other issues regarding their account. The technology is one-way communication only, with the recipient not being able to respond to the alerts.
Text messages. I sent a text message every day, the contents of which varied. The message contained a variety of the following information: 1) a reminder to read their scriptures that day, 2) a suggested scripture block to read for their next class period, and/or 3) motivational quotes from prophets or apostles. Although each message varied, they were all kept relatively short since the text could only be 148 characters. A record of all messages can be found in Appendix A.27
Cell phone text messages were sent in a mass text format with all students receiving the same message. I did not individualize the messages for the class or student. Messages were limited to scripture reading motivation and did not contain personal messages in any way from me to the individual student. It was my original intent to find teachers willing to send the messages themselves to their students; however, this was not possible. The teachers who volunteered to be part of this study felt their participation should be limited to simply reminding students to mark their calendars, and wanted me to create the text messages for all students, so each text would be the same for every student participating in the program, regardless of the teacher they had. I agreed that this approach would better identify the program as the catalyst for the change in reading, rather than the teacher.
Facebook posts. Cell phone texts were meant to contain short messages with reminders and inspiration. The Facebook posts, however, allowed students to receive more lengthy information. As with the cell texts, the content of the Facebook posts was updated for the general student population and was not customized for any particular student or class. No student received any individualized communication, and the Facebook page was set up so that students could not comment on the postings. It was for information purposes only, and was not a forum for discussion. The content of the Facebook post contained any of the following: 1) a motivational quote from church leaders encouraging students to read, 2) information or links to church-approved sites that may help students understand difficult scriptural passages, or 3) full text of scripture verses and information to help students.
Participants
Teachers. Four full-time seminary teachers were selected for this program based on willingness to be involved and demographic criteria. A mix of teachers, rather than four very similar teachers, allowed the program to be evaluated on its own merits, rather than on the skills 28
of any one type of teacher who implemented it. Two of the teachers selected were fairly new to teaching, only having 1-3 years of experience each. Of these teachers, one had only 3 classes, while the other had 6. Two of the teachers were seasoned teachers who had many years of experience each. Three teachers were male, and one was female. The female teacher is married with grown children, and is the only female in the school district who is both married and a mother. She has had 11 years of experience. The other seasoned teacher is male and has been teaching for over 30 years.
The four seminary teachers who participated in this program had a total of 21 classes amongst them. Approximately 525 students in those classes were presented with the opportunity to participate in the program. Of these 525 students, 175 chose to sign up, representing 33% taking part in the program. Although it was not a formal question anywhere on the survey or within the program, as I presented the program to the students, there were approximately 3-5 students in each class who said they could not participate because they did not have a phone. Assuming an average of 4 students per class who could not participate because they did not have a phone, the percentage of potential students who could, and did, sign up to participate in each class increased to 39%.
Due to students changing classes and other forms of attrition, the final number of students who participated and filled out a survey regarding the program was 151. Unfortunately, of those 151, only 118 kept track of their calendars, and could return both a completed survey and a calendar for analysis. (See Appendix B and C for surveys and calendars.) The students who filled out a survey, but who had misplaced their calendars or filled them out incorrectly, were able to give opinions about their experience with the program; however, no data could be analyzed to support their claims of either increase or decrease in their scripture study. Therefore, 29
for the surveys without calendars, only their opinions regarding the program were calculated into the results.
Students. Only students in the seminary classes of the four participating teachers were given the opportunity to take part in the program. All other students in different seminary teachers’ classes at this high school were not given the opportunity to participate. Students from grades 9-12 were included in each of the classes, with each class having a mix of all grades.
Since the program was strictly voluntary, and students in each class were assigned randomly, the number of participating students in each grade level was unknown previous to the implementation of the program. The following chart shows information regarding the grade level and gender of the participants in raw numbers, not percentages. Actual numbers are shown in parentheses underneath the grade level.
Figure 1. Graph showing gender and grade level participation in raw numbers.
The largest number of participants came from the freshman and sophomore classes, with 47 and 49 participants respectively. In both of those classes, females outnumbered the males. The junior class had the fewest number of participants overall and the largest difference between
0
20
40
60
Freshman
(30/17)
Sophomore
(30/19)
Junior
(19/8)
Senior
(15/14)
Gender and Grade Level Participation in Raw Numbers
Male
Female30
males and females with 19 females and only 8 males participating. The seniors had only one more participant than the juniors; however, their female/male ratio was much closer at 15/14. Overall, with n=150, 62% of participants were female, and 38% were male.
Duration
The duration of the scripture reading motivation program was 5 weeks. However, the baseline data of students’ scripture reading habits was gathered for 6 weeks prior to the implementation of the program, thus making data gathering 11 weeks in total. Baseline scripture reading data began August 24, 2012, and ended October 8. Students were not told of the upcoming program during this time; they merely marked how many minutes they read on their calendars for each day of the month. It is assumed that gathering daily scripture reading data previous to the implementation of the program did not skew results, as it is common practice for seminary teachers to collect scripture reading information on a regular basis. During the last few days of September 2012, the consent forms were distributed and collected.
There was an unforeseen delay of approximately 5 days in getting the motivational texts operational. Texts were not sent immediately due to federal laws which require the SMS provider which was used to distribute the texts to verify that the information from the program was requested by the users and the information being sent was not unwanted “spam.” Therefore, text messages and Facebook posts did not start until October 9, 2012. Students continued to keep track of their reading on the calendars they were provided throughout the duration of the program, which ended on November 10, 2012. During the week directly after the data gathering ended, participating teachers, parents and students received a survey to complete regarding the program. All commitments to the research from seminary teachers and students ended November 10, 2012.31
Research Perspective
This project employed a use of mixed methods to gather information. Although the primary focus of this project was to discover whether students’ scripture reading increased (a quantitative issue), it was also important to discover the students’ responses and opinions of the program in general (a more qualitative issue). A systematic charting of scripture reading habits were used to gather the quantitative data, and a survey was used to gather more in-depth quantitative as well as the qualitative data.
Participation in this program was with seminary teachers and high school students enrolled in a release time seminary program at a public high school in the western United States. Participation was voluntary, with no extrinsic rewards, and required the parental consent of all students involved. Students were given an oral explanation in their seminary classroom, as well as a written explanation of the program with a consent form to sign (Appendix D and E ). When they agreed to participate, students received a letter outlining the program for their parents/guardians (Appendix F). Attached to this letter was a consent form for parents/guardians to sign and acknowledge their student’s participation. Both the student and parental consent forms were required before the student could participate in the program. The program required submittal and use of students’ email and telephone numbers, which were only used for this scripture reminder program.
At no point in this program was there a reciprocal exchange of information to foster a relationship between the students and the seminary teachers or myself. The postings and texts were for information purposes only and all communication was solely directed one way from myself to the student. Students were free to discuss any concerns or problems about the program with their teachers at any time in the seminary building or during their appointed seminary class time. Parents were able to email or phone me to communicate at any time. Parents were32
encouraged to register to receive the same text alerts and social media notifications as their students so were aware of all communication occurring within this program’s framework. Parents could sign up for the program on the consent form. A total of 54 parents signed up to participate with their students.
Data Gathering and Instrumentation
In order for this program to be analyzed correctly, detailed data gathering was needed. The four teachers participating were instructed to remind all students to write the minutes they read their scriptures on their special calendars for this program. Keeping track of scripture reading is not a new concept to students, as this is something they are required to do on a regular basis. However, this program did require students to report more frequently than is sometimes done in the classroom.
In order to ensure anonymity, every student in each of the 21 classes (3 teachers with 6 classes each, 1 teacher with 3 classes) was given a 4-month calendar with a number: 001-300 (Appendix C). All students in each of these 21 classes kept track of their scripture reading throughout the program’s duration, regardless of whether or not they were participating in receiving text messages or Facebook posts.
On their individual calendars, students marked how many minutes they read each day. After the program ended, each student stapled their numbered survey to their reading charts for me to analyze. I was immediately able to sort through participants and non-participants based on which side of the survey they filled out. One side of the paper had questions regarding the program, and the other side had questions related to seminary in general. This way all students were actively writing and participating in a survey. Having both surveys being answered at the same time gave anonymity to students participating in the program. At the end of survey taking, all students stapled their surveys to their calendars. If they did not participate in the program, 33
their scripture reading data was not calculated, and their calendar was discarded. In addition to scripture reading percentages, the calendar and post-program survey enabled me to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The survey was given to each student during their seminary class, stapled to their reading charts, and collected by the teacher on the same day the survey was distributed (Appendix B).
The four seminary teachers who participated in the program were given a separate survey tailored to their specific involvement (Appendix G). An informal discussion with the teachers provided insight into how to improve this program. The original intent of this project was to conduct a semi-structured interview with all participating teachers. Unfortunately, the teachers were not available for a more structured group interview; however, their informal opinions have been documented in a later chapter.
I had originally intended to conduct a semi-structured group interview with potential students if I felt this type of information was needed. Unfortunately, there were several obstacles in getting surveys collected to determine if this type of interview was needed. The deadline for having all information collected before Thanksgiving break 2012 prevented me from conducting this interview. I felt, however, that this interview would not have produced significantly different information than what was collected on the student surveys. As with the teachers, informal discussions did take place in which students approached me with insights and information, which has been documented in the next chapters.
Parents were also given the opportunity to give feedback. Approximately 36% of students who participated had parents who also participated. On the letter of consent, parents gave their email addresses, which were used to send a short parent survey. This survey revealed how parents felt about the program (Appendix H). Despite the large number of parents participating, only 9 parents took the opportunity to voice any opinion of the program. Their 34
responses are documented in the next chapter. I had hoped parents would provide more insight since gaining their approval and consent for the program is a key factor in its potential permanent implementation.
The following chart was used as an organizational instrument to align my data gathering tools with the specific research questions posed in this project.
Research Question
Literature
Data gathering tool
1. Does receiving daily text message reminders increase the frequency of seminary students’ scripture reading?
(How many days they read.)
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011)
Naismith, L.,et al (2004)
Sharples, M. (2003)
Harris Interactive. (2008)
Quantitative data gathered through analysis of monthly calendars, and questions 3, 4 and 5 on student survey.
2. Does receiving daily text message reminders increase duration of seminary students’ scripture reading? (How many minutes per day they read.)
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011)
Naismith, L.,et al (2004)
Sharples, M. (2003)
Harris Interactive. (2008)
Quantitative data gathered through analysis of monthly calendars, and questions 3,4, and 5 on student survey.
3. Does receiving Facebook messages of inspiration and specific scripture passages increase students’ scripture reading?
Ferdig, R. (2007)
Harris Interactive. (2008)
Naismith, L.,et al (2004)
Nielsen Corporation. (2011)
Vesisenaho, M., et al., (2010)
Quantitative data gathered through analysis of monthly calendars, and questions 6, 7, and 8 on student survey.
4. What elements of the scripture reading reminder program work best toward achieving the goal of increased daily scripture reading?
Harris Interactive. (2008)
Nielsen Corporation. (2011)
Sharples, M. (2003).
Lenhart, A., et al, (2009).
Quantitative and Qualitative data from the following: Student Survey 3-10, Teacher Survey questions 1,2,3 and 4; Parent Survey questions 1-8.
Figure 2. Research question analysis chart.35
The research was conducted as outlined with a few minor variations. The following chapters discuss the findings and answer the research questions. 36
Chapter 4
Results
Results of the study show a greater percentage of students participating in the program use SMS Technology (texting) over Facebook, enjoy receiving and reading the messages, but they did not show statistically significant improvement in their scripture reading attributable to the program, even when evaluated according to gender and grade level in school.
Texting vs. Facebook
All participating students were given the opportunity to be involved in the program via text messages, Facebook, or both. Parents of the students were also invited to participate. Figure 3 shows how students and parents chose to take part in the program. Category definitions are provided, with the number of participants in each category included in parentheses.
Facebook: The students (65) or parents (11) who signed up to receive Facebook messages. This includes students who saw Facebook messages exclusively, or who received text messages as well as Facebook posts. This category is anyone who saw any Facebook posts at all.
Text Messages: The students (119) and parents (46) who signed up to receive text messages. This includes students who received text messages exclusively and the students who used both texting and Facebook. This category is anyone who received text messages during the program.
Both Text and Facebook: This category includes all students (33) and parents (3) who did both parts of the program. They received both the text messages and viewed the Facebook posts.
Facebook Only: The students (32) and parents (8) who exclusively participated via Facebook and did not receive text messages at all.37
Texting Only: The students (86) and parents (43) who exclusively participated in texting, and did not participate in receiving any Facebook posts at all.
Figure 3. Graph showing how students and parents participated in the scripture reading reminder program.
The highest percentage of participation came from students and parents who chose to receive daily text messages, with 93% of students and 85% of parents involved in the program choosing this method. Fifty-percent of students participated in Facebook; however, approximately half of those students also received text messages. Students who chose Facebook only, without the addition of text messages accounted for 25%, with 14% of their parents participating this way. The percentage of participants who chose both methods of scripture reading reminders was 25% of students and 3% of parents.
Student Reporting
Frequency of reading. Students reported the number of days read on their monthly calendars. They were expected to write how many minutes per day they read, rather than just an indication of whether or not they read, which is discussed later. An example of the calendar is included as Appendix C. The number of days they read were counted and compared with the number of days reported prior to the program’s implementation. Figure 4 shows the actual
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Facebook
(65/11)
Text Messages
(119/46)
Both Text & FB
(33/3)
Facebook ONLY
(32/8)
Texting ONLY
(86/43)
How Students and Parents Participated
Students (n=151)
Parents (n=54)38
percentage of increase, decrease, or neutrality in the frequency of their reading. It also shows a comparison between how often they actually read, compared with their self-reported feelings of how they felt they read.
Frequency % of Student Scripture Reading
Actual Percentage Taken from Calendars
Student Self-reporting on Survey
Increased
51%
16% of “Increased” reported it did not help their reading.
Stayed the Same
11%
33% of “Neutral” reported it increased their reading.
Decreased
38%
42% of “Decreased” reported it increased their reading.
Figure 4. Chart showing frequency (how many days read) percentages of student scripture reading from actual numbers and from self-reported numbers.
Duration of reading. As stated earlier, students also kept track of how many minutes per day they read. These minutes were totaled and compared with the number of minutes per day they read prior to the program being implemented. Thus, potential for improvement in either how many days students read, or how many minutes they read were each taken into consideration. Although both areas showed at least half of the students increasing and improving their reading, neither aspect of improvement was statistically significant. Figure 5 shows how many minutes students read.39
Duration (minutes read)% of Student Scripture Reading
Actual Percentage Taken From Calendars
Student Self-Reporting on Survey
Increased
50%
28% of “Increased” reported it did not help their reading.
Stayed the Same
2%
66% of “Neutral” reported it increased their reading.
Decreased
48%
46% of “Decreased” reported it increased their reading.
Figure 5. Chart showing duration (how many minutes read per day) percentages of student scripture reading from actual numbers and from self-reported numbers.
No statistically significant results. Several statistical tests were run on the data to analyze the effectiveness of the program. Both T-test and ANOVA analysis was done; however, no results proved statistically significant. The correlations run were between the dependent variable (change in minutes read from pre to post) and other variables such as class, gender, and their like/dislike of the experience. In each case there was little to no correlation found between the variables. Specifics of tests are provided below showing no correlation between gender and success in the program, as well as year in school and success in the program.
An independent sample T-test was conducted to determine if there were differences between males and females in the amount of time they read. Results indicate that there was not a significant difference between males (M= -1.34; SD=11) and females (M= -1.67; SD=15) in terms of how much they read [t (151)=.133, p = .894]. The results were statistically insignificant, showing both genders were statistically equal.
Likewise, a one-way ANOVA was run comparing each of the grade levels (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior) in the amount of time students read their scriptures pre and post program. There were no differences between the four classes in the change on the amount of 40
time spent reading [F (3)=1.733, p=.162]. In other words, it did not matter which grade was analyzed; each grade did not have statistically significant increase in reading, nor were they significantly different from each other.
Student Survey Responses
Surveys were given to all students who participated in the program (Appendix B). Approximately 118 surveys were returned with calendars containing useable data. The surveys utilized a Likert scale for students to identify to what extent they participated and the effectiveness of each part of the program. There were also two open-ended questions for which students could voice opinions, concerns, and recommendations for program improvement.
Reading texts and Facebook posts. The two graphs below identify student responses for how often they read the text messages and viewed the Facebook posts. The text messages received far more participation than Facebook, with 85% of the students viewing the texts either “always” or “most of the time.” Facebook posts were viewed “always” or “most of the time” only 39% of the time. Facebook had 25% of the students viewing it “rarely,” compared with only 4% of the text messages being read only “rarely.”
Figure 6. Graph showing in percentages how often students reported reading the text reminders.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Always
(45%)
Most of the Time
(40%)
Sometimes
(10%)
Rarely
(4%)
Never
(1%)
Did You Read the Text Reminders? (%) 41
Figure 7. Graph showing in percentages how often students reported reading the Facebook posts.
Perceived effectiveness. The students had a chance to relate how they felt the program worked for them. This data does not represent actual numbers regarding their scripture study; rather, this data is how the students believed the program helped. When compared to the actual numbers their perception is quite a bit different from reality. For the most part, students like the text messages and believe they did help to increase their scripture reading. Very few students felt the program did not help. Although fewer students felt the Facebook posts were effective in increasing their scripture study, the students overwhelmingly “liked” or “loved” the posts. Figures 8 and 9 show the perceived texting and Facebook effectiveness as self-reported by the students.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Always
(5%)
Most of the Time
(34%)
Someties
(35%)
Rarely
(25%)
Never
(1%)
Did you read the Facebook Posts? (%) 42
Figure 8. Graph showing students’ perceived text messaging effectiveness in raw numbers, not percentages.
Figure 9. Graph showing students’ perceived Facebook effectiveness in raw numbers, not percentages.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Loved Receiving/
They Helped (20)
Liked Receiving/
Moderate Help (51)
Liked Receiving/
No Help (39)
Didn't Like/
Did Help (1)
Didn't Like/
Didn't Help (2)
Students' Perceived Text Messaging Effectiveness in Raw Numbers, N= 113
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Loved Receiving/
They Helped (13)
Liked Receiving/
Moderate Help (20)
Liked Receiving/
No Help (26)
Didn't Like/
Did Help (1)
Didn't Like/
Didn't Help (1)
Students' Perceived Facebook Effectiveness in Raw Numbers N=61 43
Student recommended changes. Two open-ended questions on the survey allowed the students to voice their opinion and encouraged them to specifically state the ways in which they would change the program if they felt something needed changing. Answers were coded according to the emergent themes of their responses and are listed below. Overall, 48% of students who gave an answer to these questions felt there was no need for change. The largest request for any change was regarding the time of day the text was sent, with 15% of students suggesting modification to the program in this area. The remaining coded responses to the questions for program improvement are presented in Figure 9.
Definitions of codes are provided here with several examples to help the reader better understand the coding system. A listing of all responses can be found in Appendix I.
Change nothing: The vast majority of students felt the program was great as is, and had no suggestions for improvement or change. Students reported, “I wouldn’t change anything, it really helped me a lot,” “I wouldn't change it at all because it was really good,” and “Thank you! It was an amazing program!”
Text more often: Five students wanted multiple texts per day, not just one.
Text earlier in the day: Of all responses on how to change the program, this category received the most with 21. Students felt the time texts were sent (at 9:00 p.m. daily) came too late in the evening and would have preferred an earlier time to receive them. An example of a response from this category is: “The text messages came a little too late at night. By the time I received the message, my plans for the rest of the day were already set.” Another responded in much the same way, “Earlier messages, I found that because the texts came so late, I was busy and it was hard to find the time.”
Never got texts: Many students signed up for the program, but because of texts being blocked, or because their phone plans were with a blacklisted phone carrier, they never received 44
the message. Although only seven students reported this on their surveys, approximately 28 phone numbers were identified as not receiving the messages. More on this subject is explored in the analysis portion of this paper.
Want program longer: Six students reported they would like to have had the program go longer and did not want it to end. Responses in this category included “I would like to keep doing this,” and “I would just like the messages to continue.”
More scripture: This category included seven responses from students who felt the program focused too much on encouragement to read, and not enough on what to read. They would rather have been given specific instructions on where to read, rather than a focus on why they should read. Responses in this category included, “Instead of being quotes sent out, you should send out real scriptures that you should read. Example: Mark 1:5” and “Giving more suggestions on where to read with the usual quote.”
Don’t like/use Facebook: Seven students responded that they did not participate in the Facebook portion of the program because they simply did not like it, and did not use it.
More quotes/topic: Five students reported they did not like having specific scriptures to read and would rather have been told why they should read instead of what to read. (For the reader’s information, 80-90% of text messages were quotations from apostles explaining the importance of scripture reading.) Responses in this category include, “Reminders why I SHOULD and not just scriptures to read,” and “Have more inspirational quotes because I found that I didn't have a lot of time to read the recommended scriptures, so quotes would be nice instead so I would still be spiritually fed.” In addition, several students reported they would like to have been able to subscribe to certain topics, such as the second coming, and receive messages or scriptures only about that specific topic. 45
Other: Responses that could not be grouped in other categories are listed here. Some of the suggestions included wanting a different calendar system, wanting teachers to remind them to fill out their calendars more, and a desire for students to be more involved with pictures or activities.
Figure 10. Graph showing responses from student survey regarding how students would change the program. Answers are in raw numbers, not percentages.
Teacher surveys. Three out of the four teachers returned a survey regarding the program. The fourth teacher was called away on a special assignment and was unable to be reached to fill out a formal survey. This teacher, however, did express to me several times how his students loved the program and felt it was a worthwhile endeavor. This teacher also expressed how several of his students on different occasions would stand in front of the class to express how a text they had received the night before had made an impact on their lives. A full report of the teachers’ answers to survey questions can be found in Appendix J.
The three teachers who did return a survey expressed concern over a couple of issues. First, they were concerned that the calendar system used was confusing to the students since they
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
How Students Would Change the Program in Raw Numbers 46
were being asked to keep track of two calendars at the same time. One was a full-page calendar for this program in which they needed to write how many minutes, and the second was a very small 2 x 3 inch calendar for the seminary in which they merely made an “X” indicating if they had read at all for any particular day. Some students got confused, and marked only an “X” on the program calendar, instead of how many minutes they had read. Secondly, a teacher expressed an opinion that depending on the teacher, and how hard that teacher encouraged scripture reading, you would not be able to distinguish whether an increase in scripture reading came from the program, from the teacher’s encouragement, or a combination of both.
All teachers believed the program was beneficial and reported hearing only positive comments from their students. In addition to the teacher who was mentioned above, two other teachers also reported students sharing what they had learned with their classmates during their seminary classes when giving the daily thought or devotional. Overall, no specific numbers were given as to how many conversations were overheard, or how many times students spoke fondly of the program; it was just generally reported as a positive influence on their students.
Parent surveys. Although parents were twice sent the survey via email, only 9 of the 54 surveys sent were returned (Appendix H). Similar to the students, they were asked to rate the program on a Likert scale, and then were given open-ended questions where they could voice their thoughts regarding the program, and give suggestions for improvement.
Figure 11 illustrates the results of the returned survey questions regarding the parents’ overall experience with texting and their opinion of their student’s overall experience with the program. The highest number possible on the scale was a 7. These parents felt the program was a positive experience, with only 2 of the 9 respondents rating the experience below a 6 out of the highest possible score of seven. Only 1 of the 9 parents who returned a survey participated in Facebook and scored the experience a 6.5 out of 7 on the scale. All other parents only 47
participated with texting. The numbers on the bottom of the graph represent each survey that was returned. The parent survey #5 shows only the parent’s experience since the student did not receive the texts.
Figure 11. Graph showing the parents experience with texting and their perceived view of the program’s effectiveness with their child.
Figure 12 shows the responses to the questions, “Do you feel the program helped the students increase their scripture study frequency?” and “Do you feel the program helped you increase your scripture study frequency?” The graph indicates the majority of parents felt the program helped them to increase their reading frequency, more so than their perception of the program changing their students’ reading frequency. Since parents did not keep track of a reading calendar and no actual data was collected, the only information gathered was the perception of their reading frequency. Parent number 5 did not respond to either question.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Parent
Survey#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Parents Experience with Texting, and Students’ Overall Experience
(From parents' point of view)
Parent Text
Experience
Student
Experiece
Likert Scale
1 = Extremely Negative
7= Extremely Positive48
Figure 12. Graph showing the parents self-reported increase in their own scripture study and the perceived effectiveness of the program with their child.
Responses to the open-ended questions regarding their experience were generally positive. They were asked what they liked about the program and what they would change. The following table shows their responses to these questions.
Parent Survey #
What did you like?
What would you change?
1
Great reminders of prophet’s counsel
I would change nothing.
2
Good reminder
(No response)
3
I loved the reminder text for the kids. I also sent the text to my 8th grader.
I wouldn’t change anything. I think it was a great program.
4
It was a simple, yet effective reminder for those days when I hadn’t yet done my scriptures.
Nothing
5
(No response)
My daughter never received the text messages & we tried to go to the text support address but she still never received any 
6
The reminders were good, but I especially appreciated the quotes about the importance of scripture reading and how to get more out of scripture reading.
The text reminders usually came at 9pm for me, after I had already read my scriptures that day. It might be more helpful to vary the times of the reminders: i.e. early, midday, or evening.
7
The quotes themselves were very motivational
Nothing
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Parent
Survey#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Perceived Increase in Parent and Student Reading Frequency
(from parents’ point of view)
Student Increase
Parent Increase
Likert Scale
1= Had no Effect
7 = Very Helpful49
8
Daily accountability
(No response)
9
The quotations from the prophets and other general authorities were inspiring ad the daily text reminded me to read my scriptures if I had not yet done so. I read more often and for longer periods as a result of the text messages.
It seems that the text reminders came at various times. It would be best for me if they came within a consistent timeframe, ideally in the evening so that I could read right when I received the message.
Figure 13. Table showing responses to open-ended questions on parent survey.
Ironically the only advice for changing the program was to either vary the time of the text or to have the text more consistently delivered at a specific time of night. These conflicting responses are addressed in Chapter 5.
Conclusion. Further analysis of the results of this study will show that although there exists no statistical correlation between the scripture study program and the increased frequency or duration of scripture study among participants, the results of the data do yield important information regarding the program, its components, and its participants. 50
Chapter 5
Analysis
Analysis of the data shows students, regardless of gender or class standing, did not increase their reading frequency or duration due to the scripture reading reminder program. Significant information, however, was learned regarding the type of program students prefer and how this program can be improved.
Students prefer texting. The highest percentage of participation came from students and parents who chose to receive daily text messages, with 93% of students involved in the program choosing this method. Fifty-percent of students participated in Facebook; however, approximately half of those students also received text messages. Thus, students who chose Facebook only, without the addition of text messages, comprised only 25%, clearly showing the majority of students preferring to receive text messages over Facebook posts.
Further evidence of the texting preference is seen when students reported how often they either read the texts or viewed the Facebook posts. In the “Always Read” category, texting received 45% and Facebook received only 5%. The numbers are switched when students reported “Rarely” reading the texts only 5% of the time, while “Rarely” reading Facebook posts a much higher 25% of the time.
From this data, it can be assumed that although half of the students signed up to receive Facebook posts, the majority of the students did not read them consistently and definitely favored texting over Facebook. A future program used to remind students to read their scriptures may be better served to focus on text messages rather than Facebook posts or a combination of both methods. That being said, it is important to note that 48% of students reported they would “change nothing” about the program. 51
Perception vs. reality. Quantitative analysis was done with the student calendars to compare scripture reading frequency and duration pre and post program. These definitive numbers indicated whether or not there was an increase. For the frequency of days the students read, 51% showed an increase, while 38% showed a decrease. For duration of reading, 50% showed an increase, and 48% showed a decrease. Since the students were also given the opportunity to voice whether or not they felt the program was helpful to them, and whether or not they felt it was increasing their scripture study, actual numbers can be compared with the students’ perception of the program (Figure 4 and Figure 5).
It is interesting to note that for the students whose numbers showed a decrease in reading frequency and duration, approximately half of those students believed the program had actually increased their reading. Additionally, of the students whose numbers showed an increase in their reading frequency, 16% felt it did not help them at all, while 28% of the students who indicated an increase in duration felt it did not help them.
It is difficult to interpret what this disparity between perception and reality means to a program such as this, other than to say this highlights a problem with any self-reported data. Perhaps the best lesson to be learned is that students do not analyze their own actions very accurately, and raw data is especially needed in evaluating the effectiveness of the program. It is also important to note, however, that in my experience, teens give more weight to what they feel rather than what raw numbers reveal.
Gender and age. I assumed the results of this program would show a difference between males and females, and in the grade level of the students. It was assumed that perhaps senior boys would take the reading more seriously as they prepare for missionary service, or that girls would enjoy the text messages more which would lead to increased reading. The results, however, show that neither gender nor age made any difference in this study. The fact that senior 52
boys, for example, are not reading scriptures any more than freshmen girls is perhaps a sign that these boys need more encouragement and motivation in their efforts to prepare for a mission, or perhaps there could be a new appreciation for how hard freshmen girls are studying. I believe a limitation of this study is the amount of students participating, and there may yet be differences in this area given a study with a larger number of participants.
Females and younger grades. Although the results of the study show no grade had a statistically significant increase in scripture reading, it is interesting to note that the younger grades (freshmen and sophomores) participated more than the upper grades, and girls outnumbered boys in every grade level. It is not known whether this is a representative sample of the percentages already existing in the seminary classes (perhaps there are more females and more freshmen and sophomores enrolled in seminary in the first place), or if these percentages indicate who is most interested in participating in this type of study.
Two areas would be helpful in further understanding the percentages of participating students in the program. These areas are more analysis of seminary enrollment and class demographics (which I was not approved to analyze) and survey responses from all class members indicating reasons why students chose not to participate. The latter was not possible as no survey could have been given to students without parental consent, and this was not part of this program.
Implementation Challenges
Consent forms. The scripture reading reminder program relied heavily on students, parents, and teachers working together to make it a success. The first implementation challenge was getting the students and parents to sign and return the consent forms. Although I sent the forms via email to parents, as well as sending a physical copy of the forms home with each of the 53
potential participating students, many students struggled to remember to bring the signed forms back to their teachers.
I also provided a small chocolate candy incentive and reminder emails to parents; however, many students did not return the permission forms on time. Approximately a dozen forms were returned almost as the program was ending, which meant the student had not received the text messages, nor participated via Facebook. Therefore, they could not be included in the research. After hearing positive reports from their peers regarding the program, many students contacted me to see if they could still participate, but unfortunately they could not. It was made clear to the students via personal presentation by me, email, and on the consent forms that they needed to be returned within a certain time frame, and if not returned, they could not participate in the program. At least two parents contacted me to express interest in their child participating, but did not have a phone or access to the Internet. I explained the focus of the program was to analyze SMS technology and social media; therefore, there was no way to have their children involved without access to those things.
Keeping calendars updated. I did not have control over how strictly the seminary teachers enforced student data recording, nor how diligent students were in recording such data. Some students took their calendars home, rather than leaving them in their seminary cubby, and they were lost. Other students either misunderstood, or did not take the time to read the instructions on the calendars, which clearly stated they needed to write down how many minutes they had read each day. Some students merely put an “X” or a check mark to indicate they read, but did not indicate how many minutes were read. While three out of the four teachers were diligent in having students mark their calendars, they were not specific in reminding students to mark how long they had read. One teacher in the program did not understand it was his job to 54
remind the students to mark their calendars, so his classes did not get the reminder like the other participating students did.
Facebook posts. The Facebook component of the study required students to actively log on to Facebook in order to receive information. Although some students were in the habit of checking Facebook daily, many students did not make the effort to log on specifically for retrieving the seminary reminder program messages. A small handful of students even stated they could not find the Facebook page they were supposed to sign up on. Although the page was listed on the consent forms, those forms were handed back into me, so the information was not easily accessible to the students.
Blocks and blacklisted cell phone carriers. Certain restrictions and blocks on cell phones posed a major problem with this program. Although students signed up to receive text messages, their cellular plan’s parental controls blocked the messages from ever being received. Many parents use these controls to block unknown phone numbers from contacting their children. If the blocks are not removed, the students will not receive the texts. Although I went to each classroom and explained the situation with the blocking on the phones, and how their parents could unblock the messages, there were still some parents who were unable or unwilling to remove the block from the phone plan. Approximately a dozen students had their number blocked from receiving SMS messages thus preventing students who had wanted to participate from receiving texts.
In addition to parental phone blocks, many students had cell plans with blacklisted carriers. Blacklisting was explained to me by the TXT180 company which sent the text messages as follows:
Certain carriers that the major wireless carriers don't really like that much, and therefore they are blacklisted. None of the major carriers such as Verizon, Sprint, 55
AT&T or T-Mobile are considered ‘blacklisted’. Rather, they do the blacklisting. The major blacklisted carriers are Google Voice and L3 Communications. Rarely do you find a customer, unless they are on Google Voice or L3 that is blacklisted. (personal communication, October 3, 2012)
Although considered rare, a number of students had a blacklisted carrier for their wireless service, so they were also unable to participate, despite their willingness. Thus, approximately 28-32 students who had wanted to participate in the program, could not because their phones either had blocked the messages, or their phone carrier was blacklisted, and they could not receive the messages.
Timing of the program. This program started at the beginning of the school year, and continued until Thanksgiving break of 2012. Unfortunately throughout this time period, many factors were involved which could have skewed the effectiveness of the reminders. For instance, as soon as the program was implemented, the students had almost a week off of school for Fall Break. Many students were traveling with their families on vacations and were not able to connect to the Internet for the Facebook messages.
There was also an almost universal drop in scripture reading when Halloween and the end of the school term occurred at end of October. During this time many students were cramming for end-of-term tests. In addition, the start date of the study was delayed while the school was involved in the high school football State Championships. The seminary teachers felt it was not the right time for me to explain the program while a significant number of students were not in class.
In addition, student teachers were teaching at particular times throughout the duration of the program, which impacted when I could speak to classes and the opportunity to have their permanent teachers remind students to mark their calendars. In hindsight, I should have spoken 56
with the principal of the school to identify any school days that could be affected by such issues and planned the research presentations to the classes accordingly. Ideally, the scripture reading reminder program would have lasted at least two or three months rather than just five weeks to absorb some of the extraneous variables influencing the project.
In hindsight, a control population should have been used to compare the increase or decrease in scripture reading with students who were participating in the program. Without the benefit of a control group, it is impossible to see whether there was a natural decrease in reading across the board at certain times, such as end-of-term. Had a control group been used, we might have seen the program helping students who would otherwise have seen a decrease of reading without the program.
Limitations of the Study
Socioeconomic status. Participants in this program come from a neighborhood which can be classified as middle to upper-middle class. Relatively few students did not have cell phones or access to the internet; therefore, the results of this program would not be applicable to all seminary students unless they come from similar socio economic areas. In addition, the city where these students live boasts an 88% LDS membership, which is extremely rare for members of the worldwide LDS Church (Utah Census, 2010). Therefore, this program opens the door to understanding what seminary students might want to see in a scripture reading reminder program, however, given the demographics of the participants, this information may not be applicable church-wide.
Duration. As stated previously, the duration of this program likely did not lend itself to adequate measurement of the program’s effectiveness. Many external factors affected the students at the time this program took place. The external factors, such as end-of-term, would have had less of an impact on the study if the study had been for a longer period.57
Recommendations for Future Research
After completing the scripture reading reminder program and analyzing the data contained therein, several areas of further research are recommended. In addition, there are lessons learned in the implementation of such a program which would be helpful to future researchers.
Time of text messages. Of the students who commented on the program, 48% indicated they liked or loved the program just exactly the way it was, and would not change anything (Figure 9). In fact, there were no negative comments about the program, only personal suggestions on how it could improve (Appendix I). The most requested change to the program, with 15% of the students indicating this on their survey, was a desire for text messages to come earlier in the day (Figure 9). Having teenagers myself, I had assumed 9 p.m. would be an ideal time for text messages to be received. Although the great majority of students did feel this was the best time, it would be important for future applications of a scripture reading reminder program to be aware of individual time preferences among teens.
In addition to students being able to choose what time the texts are sent, several other recommendations for research were learned during the implementation and analysis of this program.
Control group. As mentioned earlier, accurate analysis of student reading trends would include a control group with which to compare reading data of students participating in the program with data of students not participating in the program.
Participating/not participating survey. This study did not investigate the reasons why students chose to participate. It is not known what benefit the students hoped to receive, other than the obvious increase in scripture reading. Why they choose to participate in the program and why they want to increase their scripture study would be an important area to address. In 58
addition, to further analyze student interest in a scripture reading reminder program, it is crucial to survey students who do not participate. Reasons students do not participate should be considered, and concerns could be potentially resolved thus increasing the numbers of students participating. It is most likely that the students who are not participating are the ones who need the program the most. Knowing why they do not wish to participate would be key to finding a program that would work best for them.
Program logistics. As discussed earlier, several students discovered their phones were blocked or blacklisted which prevented them from participating in the study. This problem was not known beforehand. Had the problem been anticipated, information regarding how to unblock the numbers from specific carriers, such as T-Mobile, could have been given to parents, thus increasing the number of students who could participate.
Several students also verbally discussed their frustration with not being able to find the Facebook page online. Although directions were clearly given on the consent form and demonstrated in each classroom, no written instructions were given to the students to take home with them and keep. The only written directions were on the consent form, which was returned to me, thus depriving the students of the information once the form was returned. This difficulty was not discovered until almost the end of the program, thus I was not able to rectify the problem early enough to benefit the students.
Length of the program. As discussed earlier, many extraneous circumstances impacted the implementation of the survey. Student teachers, fall break, end of term, football championships, and difficulty in getting the program started all limited the duration of the program. The data for the program should have been comparing at least the same number of weeks before and after the program, with a preference for the program to run at least 2-3 months. A longer program could have potentially shown an increase in scripture study over time, as the 59
messages had a gradual effect on students’ behavior, rather than an immediate one. Change can be difficult, and immediate change even more so. It is possible this program could have a more impressive impact if it were measuring more than just immediate change.
Focus groups. I was unable to meet with students after the program in focus groups. Although surveys provided much information, it would have been more informative to speak with students in an informal setting to ask them what type of program they might like to have and which parts of this program worked best for them. Since students would be considered stakeholders in this research, it would be advantageous to speak with them direct and get their opinions.
Post survey. Although the post survey provided a lot of information, it did not provide as much information as it could have. For instance, the question, “Would you recommend the seminary keep this program?” was answered positively by nearly every student. It is wonderful that the students enjoyed the program; however, the follow-up question of why they would keep the program was not asked. I believe this to be an important component of designing a program that works for the students.
In addition, the post surveys were given out during only one of their class periods. Therefore, if the student was absent on that day, although they participated in the program, their surveys were not filled out and evaluated. It is believed that at least a dozen surveys could have been collected had the students been given more than one opportunity to fill out a survey.
Teachers. The last area in which I would suggest changes be made in a scripture reading reminder program is in the education of the teachers. Although the wonderful teachers who took part in this program believed they understood and were on board with what to do, I discovered that all teachers did not understand their importance in reminding students to fill out calendars or 60
help with the program as much as they could. Future researchers should follow-up and ask specific questions during the program to be sure teachers are following the research protocol.
Conclusion
Although challenges and concerns with SMS technology and social media exist among teachers, parents, and educators, it appears current literature finds the benefits of these technologies to outweigh potential problems. I agree with Sharples (2003) who suggests that rather than seeing technology as disruptive devices, educators should seek to exploit the potential of the technologies students bring with them and find ways to put them into good use for the benefit of learning.
Although this particular scripture reading reminder program did not find statistically significant increases in reading among seminary students, it has proved itself to be a valuable pilot study in this area. Many lessons regarding student preference for texting, timing of the program in the school year, difficulties with SMS technologies and blacklisted phone carriers, parents’ desire for participation with their students, and the overall positive reaction this type of program received provides valuable insight for future research. 61
References
Baird, J. S. (2006). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17, 515-522.
Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1994) Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Innovative Learning Publications.
Common Sense Media. (2011, August 21). Hi-Tech Cheating: Cell Phones and Cheating in Schools: A National Poll. Retrieved from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/hi-tech-cheating
Dale, A., & Strauss, A. (2009). Don't forget to vote: Text message reminders as a mobilization tool. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 787-804. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00401.x
Dautrich, K., & Yalof, D. (2008). The future of the First Amendment: Digital media, civic education and free expression rights in the nations’ high schools. Cambridge, MA: University Press.
Facebook. (2011, December 5) Facebook Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics
Ferdig, R. (2007). Editorial: Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 5-10.
Grinter, R.E., & Eldridge, M. A. (2003). Want2tlk? Everyday text messaging. In G. Cockton & P. Korhonen (Eds.), Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2003 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference, 441-448. New York: ACM Press.
Hardy, H., Kumar, V., Doros, G., Farmer, E., Drainoni, M., Rybin, D., & Skolnik, P. R. (2011). Randomized controlled trial of a personalized cellular phone reminder system to enhance adherence to antiretroviral therapy. AIDS Patient Care & Stds, 25(3), 153-161. doi:10.1089/apc.2010.0006
Harris Interactive. (2008). A generation unplugged – Research report. Retrieved from http://files.ctia.org/pdf/HI_TeenMobileStudy_ResearchReport.pdf62
Haug, S., Meyer, C., Schorr, G., Bauer, S., & John, U. (2009). Continuous individual support of smoking cessation using text messaging: A pilot experimental study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11(8), 915-923. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp084
Kasesniemi, E. L., & Rautiainen, P. (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kert, S. (2011). The use of SMS support in programming education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 10(2), 268-273.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Current uses of wireless and mobile learning – Landscape study on the use of mobile and wireless technologies for teaching and learning in the Post-16 sector. Joint Information Systems Committee-funded project. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Current%20Uses%20FINAL%202005.doc
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purmobile, K. (2009). Teens and mobile phones over the past five years: Pew Internet looks back. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/2009/14--Teens-and-Mobile-Phones-Data-Memo.aspx
Lim, T., Fadzi, M., & Mansor, N. (2011). Mobile learning via SMS at Open University Malaysia: Equitable, effective, and sustainable. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 122-137.
Lu, M. (2008). Effectiveness of vocabulary learning via mobile phone. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 515-525.
Martínez-Torres, M., Toral, S., Barrero, F., & Gallardo, S. (2007). Improving learning performance in laboratory instruction by means of SMS messaging. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 12, 409-422.63
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2009). Mobile technologies and learning. FutureLab, 4. Retrieved from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews/Literature-Review203
National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, Sex and Tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults. (2009, August 22). Retrieved from http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/pdf/sextech)summary.pdf
Nielsen Corporation. (2011). State of the Media: The Social Media Report Q3 2011. Retrieved from http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/
Perron, N., Dao, M., Kossovsky, M. P., Miserez, V., Chuard, C., Calmy, A., & Gaspoz, J. (2010). Reduction of missed appointments at an urban primary care clinic: A randomized controlled study. BMC Family Practice, 11, 79-86. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-11-79
Pickett, A. D., & Thomas, C. (2006). Turn off that phone. American School Board Journal, 193(4), 40-44.
Puccio, J., Belzer, M., Olson, J., Martinez, M., Salata, C., Tucker, D., & Tanaka, D. (2006). The use of cell phone reminder calls for assisting HIV-infected adolescents and young adults to adhere to highly active antiretroviral therapy: a pilot study. AIDS Patient Care & Standards, 20(6), 438-444.
Riordan, B., & Traxler, J. (2003). Supporting computing students at risk using blended technologies. Proceedings of 4th Annual Conference. Galway, Ireland: LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Science, 174-175.
Sharples, M. (2003). Disruptive devices: Mobile technology for conversational learning. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 12(5/6), 504-520.
Site Analytics. (2011, December 5). Retrieved from http://siteanalytics.compete.com/facebook.com/64
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49, 376-385.
Survey: Teens’ cell phones indispensable (2008, September 15). CNET Tech News.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011). Using text-messaging in the secondary classroom. American Secondary Education, 39(2), 55-76.
Utah Census (2010). Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/city/Provo-Utah.html
Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Hartikainen, A., & Karkkainen, S. (2010). Blended learning with everyday technologies to activate students' collaborative learning. Science Education International, 21(4), 272-283. 65
Appendix A
Chart of Text Messages
Sent At
Contacts
Message
11/07/2012 08:44:pm MST
276
Thanks so much 4 your participation in the scripture reading reminder program! This is the last message. Hope you found yourself reading more! Stop to cancel
11/06/2012 09:00:pm MST
276
1Ne15:24 (The iron rod is)the word of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God & hold fast unto it, they would never perish.Hold tight! Stop to cancel
11/05/2012 09:00:pm MST
276
Alma31:5 The word(of God lead) the people to do that whch was just - yea, it had more powrful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword. Stop to cancel
11/04/2012 08:40:pm MST
276
Hel3:29 Yeah, we see that whosoever...may lay hold upon the word of God which is..powerful which shall divide asunder the snares of the devil. Stop to cancel
11/03/2012 09:00:pm MST
276
Ezra Taft Benson: The best way to obtain the blessing of the spirit is scripture study. Give God your best and his best will come back to you. Stop to cancel
11/02/2012 09:02:pm MST
276
Elder Bednar One of the best ways to draw near unto Him ...and become more like (Him) is to consistently study the holy scriptures. Stop to cancel
11/01/2012 08:58:pm MST
277
Going to the scriptures to learn what to do makes all the difference..We will find answers in the scriptures. (Pres. Eyring) Be sure to read! Stop to cancel
10/31/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
There is nothing sweeter than the word of God. Not even halloween candy. ;) Try reading a verse for every bite of candy you have tonight! Stop to cancel
10/30/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
Pres Hinckley I know with the demands of your studies there is little time to read anything else...Let the Lord speak for himself to you. Read! Stop to cancel66
10/29/2012 09:00:pm MST
278
Helaman 5:12 and Matthew 7:24-27. Can you find what they are both teaching? Hint: It's about a rock - and it's AWESOME! Stop to cancel
10/28/2012 08:30:pm MST
278
Elder Bednar: I do not know of a better way to always remember Him than to daily study the scriptures. Did you renew this covenant today? Stop to cancel
10/27/2012 09:00:pm MST
279
Pres Hunter:There is nothing more helpful than prayer 2 open our understanding of the scriptures. Try praying B4 U read tonight 4 understanding Stop to cancel
10/26/2012 09:00:pm MST
279
Elder Hales: We must see the scriptures for what they are: an instruction manual for becoming like our Savior. You can do this - you can read! Stop to cancel
10/25/2012 09:00:pm MST
280
Pres. Benson:When we put God first, all other things fall into their proper place or drop out of our lives. Put Him first tonight, and read. Stop to cancel
10/24/2012 09:00:pm MST
282
Try reading Mark 14 before taking the sacrament this week.See how much symbolism you can identify in the sacrament. What reminds us of His death? Stop to cancel
10/23/2012 09:00:pm MST
282
Pres.Hunter: Not only should we study each day, but there should B a regular time set aside when we can concentrate without interference. 9:00? Stop to cancel
10/22/2012 09:00:pm MST
283
Try reading Matt. 14:22-33. What does this have to do with our faith? When you find yourself sinking, dive into the scriptures for His help. Stop to cancel
10/21/2012 08:30:pm MST
283
Pres. Monson:Study (the scriptures) as though they were speaking to you, for such is the truth. Take time to read AND study tonight if you can. Stop to cancel
10/20/2012 09:00:pm MST
283
Elder Nelson: To feast means more than to taste..(it is)to savor. We savor the scriptures by studying them in a spirit of delightful discovery... Stop to cancel
10/19/2012 09:00:pm MST
284
Mark Chapters 5-8 teach us of Christ's power to heal, his power over the elements, satan, and 67
even death. Try reading them to identify His power. Stop to cancel
10/18/2012 09:00:pm MST
285
(Sheri Dew)Some of the clearest promptings I have ever received have come while being immersed in the scriptures.They R a conduit for revelation. Stop to cancel
10/17/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
Time for scrip. study requires a schedule that will B honored.(or) blessings that matter most will B at the mercy of things that matter least-RMN Stop to cancel
10/16/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
When we want to speak to God, we pray.And when we want Him to speak to us, we search the scriptures. (Elder Hales)Let Him speak to you tonight. Stop to cancel
10/15/2012 09:00:pm MST
277
Pres. Hinckley (Reading Scriptures) at first may seem tedious, but that will change into a wonderous experience with thoughts and words..divine. Stop to cancel
10/14/2012 08:30:pm MST
279
It is better to have a set amount of time to give scriptural study each day than to have a set amount of chapters to read. Howard W. Hunter Stop to cancel
10/13/2012 08:30:pm MST
279
When we read the scriptures we are hearing the voice of the Savior. He is not absent from our lives . -Cheryl Lant. Be sure to read tonight! Stop to cancel
10/12/2012 08:30:pm MST
279
When it seems that I am far far away...If I immerse myself in the scriptures the distance narrows and the spirituality returns.(Pres. Kimball) Stop to cancel
10/11/2012 08:30:pm MST
279
Thank you for signing up to receive scripture reading reminders. You will receive a daily message to encourage you to read. Stop to cancel68
Appendix B
Student Survey Student Seminary Program Number_________________
1. What year in school are you? Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior
Circle: Male/ Female
2. Did your parents participate in the program? (Circle)
1. NO 2. Yes Facebook 3. Yes Texts
3. Did you receive cell phone text messages? YES/NO (If “no,” skip to question 6
4. Did you read the cell phone text reminders?
(Circle the answer that best describes how often you read)
Always -----Most of the Time-----Some of the Time----- Rarely-----Never
5. What sentence best describes your reaction to the cell phone text reminders?
a. I loved receiving the messages! They helped me increase my scripture study frequency.
b. I liked receiving the messages. They kind-of helped me increase my scripture study.
c. I liked receiving the messages, but they did NOT help me increase my study.
d. I didn’t like receiving the messages, but I DID read more.
e. I didn’t like receiving the messages, and my scripture reading DID NOT increase.
f. Other: If none of the above apply, please write a sentence of your own, if you wish.
6. Did you participate via Facebook? YES/NO (if “no”, skip to question 9)
7. Did you read the Facebook posts? 69
Always -----Most of the Time-----Some of the Time----- Rarely-----Never
8. What sentence best describes your reaction to the Facebook Posts?
a. I loved receiving the messages! They helped me increase my scripture study frequency.
b. I liked receiving the messages. They kind-of helped me increase my scripture study.
c. I liked receiving the messages, but they did NOT help me increase my study.
d. I didn’t like receiving the messages, but I DID read more.
e. I didn’t like receiving the messages, and my scripture reading DID NOT increase.
f. Other: Please write a sentence of your own, if you wish.
9. If you could change anything about the program, what would it be?
10. Would you recommend the Seminary keep this program? YES/NO
11. Any additional comments or concerns regarding the program? (Feel free to use the back) 70
Appendix C
Calendars71
72
73
Appendix D
Letter of Explanation to Parents and Guardians
Dear Parent or Guardian of ___________________ Seminary Student,
My name is Wendy Bird, and I am a frequent substitute teacher at ___________High School Seminary. I am currently in the process of studying to receive my Master’s Degree, and am looking for help from your student to complete my master’s project. I have created a program to help increase scripture reading among seminary students. As we know, most teenagers need frequent reminders to help them make scripture study a daily habit. In conjunction with the faculty at ____________High School, we would like to help do just that.
The Scripture Reading Reminder Program is 6-weeks long, and consists of two parts: Cell phone text reminders and posts via Facebook. As a mother of teenagers myself, I know how much students rely on their phones, and how often they use their Facebook accounts. Current research indicates 80% of teenagers are cell phone users, of whom 90% use text messaging. Facebook is touted as the number one social networking site among teens. By utilizing these two outlets, we are using technology teens already use and love.
For our program, a text message from the seminary student’s teacher will be sent every day, the contents of which will be at the discretion of the teacher. The messages will be sent in a “mass text” format with all students receiving the same message. The teacher will not individualize the messages for the class or student. Messages will be limited to scripture reading motivation, and will not contain personal messages in any way from the teacher to the individual student. The text message will contain any or all of the following information: 1) a reminder to read their scriptures that day, 2) the scripture block assigned for their next class period, and 3) the scripture mastery scripture currently being studied.
In addition, students will be asked to sign up to receive posts on the ___________Seminary Facebook page. The content of the posts will contain any or all of the following: 1) The actual text of scripture passages assigned to students, 2) a motivational quote from church leaders encouraging them to read, 3) links to church-approved information that may help them understand difficult scriptural passages, 4) full text of Scripture Mastery verses and information to help them with memorization. As with the cell phone messages, this is a mass post, utilizing one-way communication from teacher to student. No student will receive any individualized communication.
If you and your student are comfortable signing up for this voluntary program, please sign the attached form. If you choose, you may also sign up to receive the same text and Facebook posts as your students. We highly encourage you as parents to participate in our program and receive the information along with your child. Please feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions or concerns regarding the program. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Wendy Bird
(435) 640-6146 Cell
(801) 801-356-1149 Home74
Appendix E
Seminary Scripture Reading Reminder Program Consent Form
I , _(please print) ____________________ give my permission for my student, _________________________________________________ to participate in the Seminary Scripture Reading Reminder Program at ______________ High School. I understand at the completion of the 6-week program, my student will fill out a small anonymous survey. If he/she is interested, I give my student permission to participate in an interview with the researcher regarding the program.
_____________________________________ Student’s cell phone number
______________________________________ Parent’s Signature
Parent Participation
“Participation” means you will receive cell phone text messages and be responsible for signing up for posts on the ___________High Seminary Facebook page. There will be a survey for parents at the end of the program, which is not required for participation, but would be helpful to the researcher if you are willing. It will be sent to you via email. No other time or effort is required for parent participation.
Yes, I would like to participate with my student in the Scripture Reading Reminder program. Please send me the cell phone messages. I will go to the _____________Seminary Facebook page, and sign up posts.
_____________________ Parent(s) cell phone number (For text messages)
_____________________ Parent(s ) Email (For survey at the end of the program.)
No, I would not like to participate with my student in the Scripture Reading Reminder program. If at any time during the duration of the program I wish to receive the cell phone text messages, I can contact my student’s seminary teacher to be included.75
Appendix F
INFORMED CONSENT
Using SMS Technology and Social Media to Increase Scripture Reading among Teens Enrolled in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Seminary Education Program.
Seminary Scripture Reading Motivation Program
Principal Investigator
Wendy Bird
2545 N. 400 E. Provo, UT 84604
(435) 640-6146
Wendy@GoneScrappin.com
Background:
You are being invited to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take the time to read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
The purpose of this study is to determine whether social media and/or texting motivational reminders to students regarding scripture reading will result in increased scripture reading among seminary students.
Study Procedure:
For most students, your expected time commitment for this study is no more than 1hour of seminary classroom time, spread out over the course of 6 weeks. A small handful of students may be asked to participate in a group interview regarding the program which would require approximately one more hour of the students’ time .
You will be asked to sign up for Facebook posts outside of your seminary classroom. It is expected that you will most likely do this at your own home. You will also be asked to provide your cell phone number so you can be contacted via text messaging. For 6 weeks you will receive text messages and/or Facebook posts regarding scripture reading. You will keep a log of how many minutes you read your scriptures for every day during the 6 week period. At the end of the 6 weeks, you will fill out a survey in your seminary class about your experience with the program. You may leave the survey blank if you choose, and participation in the program is completely voluntary. This program is not part of your academic grade in seminary. 76
Risks:
The risks of this study are minimal. These risks are similar to those you experience when disclosing work-related information to others. The topics in the survey may upset some respondents. You may decline to answer any or all questions and you may terminate your involvement in the program at any time if you choose.
August 28, 2012
Page 1 of 3
INFORMED CONSENT
Using SMS Technology and Social Media to Increase Scripture Reading among Teens Enrolled in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Seminary Education Program.
Benefits:
There will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study. However, we hope that by being contacted through the program, your scripture reading increases, you come more prepared to your seminary class, and you find Scripture Mastery scriptures easier to remember.
Confidentiality:
Please do not write any identifying information on your questionnaire or calendars. Your responses will be anonymous. HOWEVER, if you are willing to be identified and would like to participate in a short interview regarding the program, there will be a space on the questionnaire for you to include your contact information. This is completely voluntary, and not necessary for your participation in the program.
Every effort will be made by the researcher to preserve your confidentiality including the following:
Assigning code numbers for participants that will be used on all researcher notes and documents. Notes, interview transcriptions, and transcribed notes and any other identifying participant information will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the researcher. When no longer necessary for research, all materials will be destroyed. The researcher and the members of the researcher’s committee will review the researcher’s collected data. Information from this research will be used solely for the purpose of this study. Any final publication will contain the names of the public figures that have consented to participate in this study; all other participants involved in this study will not be identified and their anonymity will be maintained.
Person to Contact:
Should you have any questions about the research or any related matters, please contact the researcher, Wendy Bird, at Wendy@gonescrappin.com, or via phone at (435) 640-6146.77
Institutional Review Board:
If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, or if problems arise which you do not feel you can discuss with the Investigator, please contact the Institutional Review Board Office at (801) 863-8156.
August 28, 2012
Page 2 of 3
INFORMED CONSENT
Using SMS Technology and Social Media to Increase Scripture Reading among Teens Enrolled in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Seminary Education Program.
Voluntary Participation:
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part in this study. If you do decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take part in this study, you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. You are free to not answer any question or questions you choose. This will not affect the relationship you have with the researcher.
Unforseeable Risks:
There may be risks that are not anticipated. However every effort will be made to minimize any risks.
Costs to Subject:
There are no costs to you for your participation in this study.
Compensation:
There is no monetary compensation to you for your participation in this study.
Consent:
By signing this consent form, I confirm that I have read and understood the information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I will be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.
Signature________________________________________________________ Date_________78
I understand that by listing my cell phone number below, I agree to receive cell phone text reminders regarding scripture reading.
I understand that I should go to the ______________ High School Seminary Facebook page and sign up to receive posts regarding scripture reading. I understand I will need to do this on my own home computer, as a computer at the school will not be available for my use.
____________________________________________ Student’s Cell Phone Number
____________________________________________________Student’s Name
___________________________________________________ Student’s Signature
August 28, 2012
Page 3 of 379
Appendix G
Teacher Survey
1. Was it difficult to remember to have the students fill out the calendars?
2. How diligent were you in reminding them?
3. What problems did you see with the program?
4. Did you see any positive results with kids who did the program?
5. Were there any comments you herd or overheard the kids make
(positive or negative) regarding the program?
6. Anything else you observed or can think of – including any way you can think
to improve the program?80
Appendix H
Parent Survey (Via Email)
1. Did you receive text messages? YES/NO
If yes, please rate your overall experience with receiving text messages as part of the seminary scripture reminder program.
Extremely Negative 1___2___3____4____5___6___7 Extremely Positive
2. Did you receive Facebook messages? YES/NO
If yes, please rate your overall experience with receiving Facebook messages as part of the seminary scripture reminder program.
Extremely Negative 1___2____3____4___5___6___7 Extremely Positive
3. Please rate your impression of your students’ overall experience with the program.
Extremely Negative 1___2____3___4____5___6___7 Extremely Positive
4. Do you feel the program helped the students increase their scripture study frequency?
Had No Effect 1____2____3____4____5____6___7 Was Very Helpful
5. What did you like about the program?
6. What didn’t you like about the program? What would you change?
7. Please leave any other comments or suggestions you feel would be helpful in adjusting the program in any way.
THANK YOU81
Appendix I
Student Responses to Open-Ended Survey Questions
#
Misc. Suggestions and Observations
92
that when you text it to me make sure that the words that you are trying to say is on the same text message.
94
nothing except the "stop to cancel" at the end of the text should be removed.
247
I enjoyed having the calendars because it was something that kept me reading.
248
get the students more involved with pictures or activities.
253
maybe some scripture mastery and last general conference talk quotes.
399
Maybe provide a different way of keeping track of scripture study habits, like a chart that can be inserted in scriptures.
428
more facebook things, less/shorter texts.
more reminders in seminary to fill out the calendar.
445
Make the texts/FB reminders more appealing
492
Some of the texts were a little strange i.e. the one about the rock
17
It helps because you check those things a lot.
50
It would get my hopes up (I thought it was a text from a friend.)
259
not all kids have internet/texting, so if there could be more reminders that all the kids could read/see, there would be more peer pressure too!
238
I think this program could be beneficial, BUT for certain people that don't regularly read it could further turn them away. Could be annoying.
504
Better candy
Suggestions Regarding Time Texts are Sent
None
I loved it. Maybe if the texts were sent in the morning, though, it would have been more helpful to keep me focused on making time for it sometime that day. By 9pm I'm super busy without a lot of time.
441
I think it's a great program, and it probably helped other students, but by the time I usually got them, I was going to sleep.
9
What time the texts come
60
Probably nothing, I would have liked to receive the texts earlier rather than at night because at night I'm too lazy and tired to read.
64
Send the text messages later when I will be in a position to read. I read around 10:30 pm.
183
Receive the text earlier than 8
222
sending the reminders a little bit earlier.
226
have the texts sent earlier, they were always sent at 9:00 and I 82
didn't like that.
233
Remind us earlier. If late, we get too tired to read and ignore it sometimes.
254
I wish it would come at a different array of times. A text at 7:00 and another at 9:00
274
Earlier messages, I found that because the texts came so late, I was busy and it was hard to find the time.
294
Have texts be in the morning. I know it would be less likely to influence increased reading, but it would be more influential for a better day I feel like.
349
I don't think I would change much, maybe do the texts a little earlier, like 5 or 7pm instead of 8 or 9.
398
The time that we get the text we would always get them really late and by then I would not have the time to read.
400
I received the text messages while I was at volleyball practice… so I often forgot when I got home.
410
Maybe the time the texts were sent. Other than that, I enjoyed